Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Health Inequalities

Mr. O'Neill: What plans he has for tackling inequalities in health in Scotland. [21712]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): The priorities and planning guidance for 1998–99, issued in August 1997, to the national health service in Scotland includes tackling inequalities in health. In addition, a Green Paper will be published shortly, seeking views on our proposals for improving health in Scotland and for tackling inequalities.

Mr. O'Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on announcing the publication of the long-awaited Green Paper. It is 18 years since the Black report was published, showing clearly the link between inequality and poor health throughout the United Kingdom. Could my hon. Friend also find the means to make the Black report available again? He will recall that it was available for only a short period before it was suppressed by Mrs. Thatcher's last Government.

Mr. Galbraith: I very much regret that the Black report was not published extensively and in full. The last Government's failure to recognise the link between deprivation and ill health has greatly held back the progress of the nation's health. We are currently involved in updating much of the information contained in the Black report, although the basic premises will remain the same and will be reflected in our forthcoming Green Paper.

Mr. Moore: In reviewing funding formulae for the health service in Scotland, will the Minister ensure that deprivation in rural areas receives as much priority as any other factors that he may take into account?

Mr. Galbraith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a specialist group is reviewing the SHARE—Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation—allocation formula, which has been around since the late 1970s and needs to be updated. One of the areas that it is considering for the distribution of funds is what is known as the

"rurality" index. I make no judgments about it. We are waiting for good scientific advice, which is what we expect from the committee.

Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest inequalities in health in Scotland is the appalling difference between the dental health of young people in deprived areas and in better-off areas? Does he agree that the most effective and cheapest way to solve that problem once and for all is to introduce fluoride into the public water supply?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, we often forget the importance of dental health in this debate. Like all ill health, it is directly related to deprivation in society. We can tackle poor dental health by cutting down sugar intake and by regular brushing of teeth, but the best and most effective way to improve dental health in deprived communities is to include fluoride in the water supply.

Locate in Scotland

Mr. Fallon: What representations he has received about the future of Locate in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [21713]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of individuals and organisations. We have made it clear, in response to such representations, that Locate in Scotland is and will remain an outstandingly effective inward investment agency.

Mr. Fallon: If there is no concern about Locate in Scotland's ability to compete fairly with the United Kingdom's other inward investment agencies, why is the Department of Trade and Industry negotiating a concordat between them all?

Mr. Wilson: I am more than confident of Locate in Scotland's ability to compete effectively. In the past two weeks, I have had the privilege of making a couple of announcements about substantial successes for Locate in Scotland. I am pleased to announce today another success, which is the attraction of 30 new jobs to Arbroath through Alps Electric (Scotland) Ltd., which is investing £350,000. I expect to make many more such announcements. All of that is a tribute to Locate in Scotland. Everybody who takes a serious interest in those matters knows that the last thing that Locate in Scotland wants is a free for all involving other agencies and prospective agencies in the United Kingdom putting up the bidding for the creation and attraction of jobs. It therefore makes sense to have a concordat involving all parts of the United Kingdom to deal particularly with expressions of interest from potential inward investors where initially the interest is generic to the whole of the UK.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the past successes of Locate in Scotland, but does my hon. Friend agree with Labour Members that, in the context of the Scottish Parliament, Locate in Scotland will have a pivotal role in attracting significant investment, as it has had over many years?

Mr. Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Locate in Scotland will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament,


and that is entirely as it should be. It will be an important part of its devolved functions. I have no doubt that Locate in Scotland will continue to be successful. Since the general election, it has been clear that all the scare stories from the Tories about either the change of Government or the constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom that we proposed were just that—scare stories. Inward investment decisions have continued to increase rather than diminish.

Mr. Kirkwood: In any review of Locate in Scotland's work, will the Minister consider the balance between investment in areas that already have access to regional development assistance and investment in the more rural areas that do not? I acknowledge the good work that Locate in Scotland has done in the past, but does he accept that it makes it much more difficult for Ministers to give any assistance to communities furth of the central industrial belt, in towns such as Hawick, in which the Minister has taken an interest recently?

Mr. Wilson: The regional selective assistance map will be reviewed, and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are taken into account. What comes through repeatedly in discussions with inward investors to Scotland is that, although money is an important part of the package, it is far from being the only factor. There may be overriding reasons to go to a part of Scotland that is not blessed in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. The skills of the labour force, the availability of workers and the environment are factors on which the Borders would rate favourably. My constituency has not done very well out of inward investment decisions in recent years, but it has the advantages to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That can work both ways, as many factors are taken into account. However, his comments will be noted and considered.

Mrs. McKenna: Does my hon. Friend agree that Locate in Scotland is one of the most successful inward investment agencies in Europe? The expansion a couple of weeks ago of the German company Isola Werke in my constituency to include another 300 jobs is one of its successes.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, that was the second announcement of the new year, and it was excellent. I would go further than my hon. Friend and say that I do not think that it is one of the most successful development agencies in Europe; it is the most successful. There is no doubt that a combination of the United Kingdom's overseas presence and what it does for inward investment, and the enormous value that is added by the activities of Locate in Scotland, give us a two-track approach that works extremely well in Scotland's interest and in the interests of the United Kingdom economy.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: In his discussions on the concordat, will the Minister take into account the recent report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? Does he agree that any further restrictions on the activities of Locate in Scotland would be at the cost of jobs in Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: I was delighted with the Select Committee's report on inward investment. It bore out

what I have been saying in recent months. There has been a lot of over-excited chatter about threats to Locate in Scotland, and a great deal of nonsense talked about its alleged poaching activities. The report was extremely encouraging on both grounds.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and anyone else that there is no conspiracy against Locate in Scotland. Everyone recognises that its work is good for Scotland and for the whole of the United Kingdom. In that spirit, Locate in Scotland will go forward, and a concordat makes sense. No one who takes a serious interest in this matter—as opposed to making silly nationalistic points—thinks that there is anything in it for Scotland to have a free for all in which agencies have an unfettered right to bid against one another, the result of which is that jobs cost more, not least to Scotland, and we lose rather than gain investors.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Swinney: When he last met representatives of the Scottish farming industry to discuss farm income levels. [21714]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Ministers meet the National Farmers Union of Scotland on a regular basis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the union on 16 December. My noble Friend Lord Sewel last met them on 5 January, when farm incomes, among other issues of concern, were discussed.

Mr. Swinney: I welcome the Minister to his post. He will be aware of the TSB agricultural study, which was published yesterday and which shows that 94 per cent. of farmers believe themselves to be less prosperous this year than last year, that there has been a collapse in agricultural investment and that there is poor confidence in the hill and livestock sectors.
What measures is the Minister taking to secure European Union support for the lifting of the export ban, either through the computerised traceability scheme or through the date-based scheme? When does he expect the first beef from Scotland to be sold in Europe, alongside beef from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Macdonald: I acknowledge that farmers are going through a very difficult period in comparison with earlier years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the lifting of the export ban is being pursued in a number of ways. There is the certified herd scheme—the work on computerisation is proceeding as fast as possible—and there is the new date-based scheme, which we are pursuing in parallel with the European Commission.

Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome my hon. Friend—who represents the most rural constituency in Britain—to his important responsibilities.
When my hon. Friend meets representatives of farmers in Scotland, will he explain that the blockade at Stranraer carried out by people such as John Cameron is likely to make it rather more difficult to resist similar blockades against Scottish food exports in the future? Will he join me in paying tribute to Sandy Mole for his excellent record of responsible leadership of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in recent years? As a member of that


union, may I also pay tribute to the Government for their excellent initiatives to restore public confidence in Scottish beef, both at home and abroad, and to support the vital hill farming sector?

Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I entirely agree with him about the unfortunate nature of the events in Stranraer and elsewhere, which did not help the case at all. I also associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about Mr. Sandy Mole, with whom we had a very good working relationship. I hope that we shall continue to have that good working relationship with his successors.

Mr. Ancram: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and wish him well in his responsibilities. I am, however, surprised and somewhat disappointed that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not responding to this question. Does he really not appreciate the seriousness of the crisis facing farming, and the damage that is now being done to agriculture by the high rate of sterling and the green pound? Will he disown his noble Friend Lord Sewel because of his view that farmers have been treated generously in the past, and should stop complaining now? Will he also take action urgently to rescue an industry that is vital to Scotland's rural economy, but is currently in danger of going to the wall?

Mr. Macdonald: I certainly agree that the industry is vital, and that it faces difficult pressures. That is why the Government have indeed taken action. We have announced an £85 million package, a full third of which will go to Scottish farmers who—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—are facing a particularly difficult time

Mr. Ancram: That simply is not good enough. Such complacency is endemic in the Minister's Government at present, and does no service to agriculture in Scotland.
Does the Minister not understand that financial help is now urgently needed, as is compensation for the high value of the green pound? The help that was given earlier has already been overtaken by extra charges. No other country in Europe would not have triggered the compensation mechanism in such circumstances. Will the Minister and his colleagues wake up and do something for the farmers of Scotland?

Mr. Macdonald: Let me directly compare the assistance that we have provided with the assistance provided last year. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman's Government provided £60 million of extra assistance to deal with the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy crisis, but they made no further provision for the following year. We have provided £85 million to respond to farmers' current difficulties.

University Applications

Mr. David Davis: How many applications have been made to Scottish universities for the 1998–99 academic year; and how many were made in the comparable period for the 1997–98 and 1996–97 academic years. [21716]

Mr. Wilson: Figures for Scottish higher education institutions have not yet been published by the universities central admissions system. However, provisional United

Kingdom figures show that, by 15 December 1997, the universities and colleges admissions service had received 326,220 applications for entry to higher education in 1998. That compares with 347,037 at the same point in 1996 and 340,711 at the same point in 1995.

Mr. Davis: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is always regrettable when the number of applicants for higher education goes down, particularly when, as in this case, those applicants are not helped by an immoral policy that discriminates against all UK students who are not Scots. More Northern Ireland students apply to Scotland than to anywhere else in the UK. When we are in every other way helping Northern Ireland to remain a part of the Union, what is he doing to end that immoral discrimination?

Mr. Wilson: I would caution anyone against placing too much importance on applications because there is a big difference between applications and admissions. In quoting any of these figures, hon. Members have to remember that, in the current academic year, admissions to Scottish universities went up by 5 per cent. as people moved, understandably, to pre-empt the changes in student funding.
On the point about non-Scottish students, again, the right hon. Gentleman should consider some of the statistics. For instance, in an Adjournment debate last Thursday, I pointed out that, in marked contrast with the near hysterical comments at the last Scottish Question Time about the prospects for St. Andrews university and about the cataclysmic implications for the Scottish economy, applications to the university from non-Scottish students within the UK are up 6 per cent. for next year. The problem of Northern Irish students is a funding problem for the Northern Ireland Office. It has to decide how to fund students who go to universities in other parts of the UK, as the Scottish Office has to determine how Scottish students are funded.

Mr. Dalyell: How long can a system be sustained whereby students on the same course pay different fees simply because they come from different parts of the UK?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend knows that his question is disingenuous. It is not simply because students come from different parts of the UK; it is also because they hold different entry qualifications. If he wants perfect symmetry in the UK education system, that is a big argument, but at present Scottish school-leaving qualifications are geared to the Scottish four-year honours degree course and students who hold A-levels may in many cases enter in the second year of a four-year course. In making a judgment about which university to go to, any student will take into account whether he wants to enter a four-year course in the first year or whether he should take advantage of the possibility of entering a four-year course in the second year, if his qualifications are appropriate.

Mr. Wallace: For students entering university in 1998–99, in subsequent academic years, what will the position be with regard to supplementary allowances? Does the Minister accept that that is of considerable importance to students throughout Scotland, particularly those from


more remote areas, who are worried about their travel allowances? For example, a student from Shetland attending Dundee university may face travel costs of £360. It is important that students entering a course should know what the financial implications are throughout their period at university. Those who enter in the coming academic year should have the same supplementary allowance arrangements throughout their stay at university.

Mr. Wilson: The existing arrangements do not disadvantage students in terms of travel costs, but that is all part of the consultation on the Dearing and Garrick reports. I would be pleased to hear any additional point that the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to make to me on the matter, but there is no such proposal.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Some people might think that the Minister's answers have been disingenuous. Northern Ireland students have travelled to Scotland since long before the Act of Union 1801. I therefore ask that the matter be given further consideration. Can the Minister tell us, for example, the difference in academic standards? Northern Ireland students have met the Scottish standards and come through with flying colours—not only to the betterment of Northern Ireland students but to the credit of Scottish universities.

Mr. Wilson: Northern Ireland students, and students from all other parts of the United Kingdom, are very welcome and valuable components of the Scottish higher education system, and they will continue to be so. The debate is very narrow, because 40 per cent. of all students—irrespective of where they come from—will pay no tuition fees, and only a relatively small minority of students will pay the full amount.
Whether fees should be met for paying students from other parts of the United Kingdom who are on Scottish four-year degree courses is a question for the relevant territorial Department—for the Department for Education and Employment, for English students, and for the Northern Ireland Office, for Northern Ireland students. Those Departments have their own considerations in answering that question. I have responsibility for Scottish students in higher education. I realise—as the Garrick report realised—the anomaly in Scotland of the four-year degree being the normal course linked to school leaving qualifications, and I have dealt with that anomaly.

Dr. Fox: In the fiasco over non-Scottish UK students and over student fees generally, two matters are clear. First, the Minister has absolutely no appetite for the changes that he is introducing. Secondly, the changes are utterly Treasury-driven. Will the Minister tell us whether the Treasury's inability to recognise the different funding requirements for Scottish and English higher education provision is—to use the words of No. 10 Downing street—one of the Chancellor's "psychological flaws"?

Mr. Wilson: I have an appetite for annually putting £140 million extra into Scottish higher and further education. The Tory legacy was to pile on the numbers and to cut the money.

Kincardine Bridge

Ms Squire: What representations he has received on the replacement of the Kincardine bridge. [21717]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): Since taking office, we have received 11 letters on issues related to the replacement of the Kincardine bridge. I am also aware of the meeting in July between my hon. Friend, supported by members and officials of Fife council, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), during his period as Minister responsible for local government and transport at the Scottish Office.

Ms Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that replacement of the Kincardine bridge has widespread support, and that replacing it is a matter of urgent priority in assisting inward investment, in easing traffic congestion and in reducing pollution at Kincardine? Given the years of delay and indecision by the previous Government, is the Minister able to announce any early action that he intends to take to secure the bridge's early replacement?

Mr. McLeish: I am very conscious of my hon. Friend's active pursuit of the matter, which is a very important transport issue. A review of the options at Kincardine is now being finalised by officials—whose advice I expect to receive shortly—and a decision will be taken as soon as is reasonably practicable. Because of the matter's importance, we have accelerated the options review.
Consideration of Kincardine must also be set against some very important strategic transport issues in the central belt. I will therefore be seeking at an early stage to have a meeting with all the councils around the Forth estuary, to examine not only the matter of the Kincardine bridge but other matters. I intend to create a more comprehensive, strategic and important forum for pursuing those important matters, and I look forward to an early meeting with my hon. Friend to go over some of the issues, including that of Kincardine bridge.

Scottish Parliament Elections

Mr. McAllion: What assessment he has made of the advantages of holding the first elections to a Scottish Parliament in 1999 on the same day as local government elections in Scotland. [21718]

The Secretary of State for Scotlnd (Mr. Donald Dewar): I believe that a joint poll will increase interest in the local government elections and lead to a higher turnout with lower overall costs. It also avoids voters having to go to the polls three times in quick succession.

Mr. McAllion: First, may I wish my right hon. Friend every success in his bid to become a candidate at one of those elections? I hope that we are given the stamp of approval by what has already been called the people's panel. Is not the real link between the two elections that the outcome of both will have a huge impact on the future structure and financing of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland? Therefore, may I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that between now and the elections he will prevent the unelected water quangos from entering into


any private finance initiative contracts which will effectively tie the hands of Members of the Scottish Parliament and prevent local councillors from fulfilling their manifesto commitment to bring the water and sewerage industry back under local democratic control

Mr. Dewar: I can give my hon. Friend two assurances. First, I shall not be shopping in Dundee with regard to any of the elections and secondly, I congratulate him on his ingenuity in referring to unelected water boards. I must also disappoint him by saying that I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks. I expect the water boards to address the problem of getting much-needed investment into the industry and achieving the standards that people in Scotland deserve.

Mrs. Laing: Can the Secretary of State please explain why he considers it important to achieve a so-called gender balance in the elections to the new Scottish Parliament and how he intends to do so?

Mr. Dewar: That again is ingenious. I hope that the hon. Lady does not imagine that by standing in her place she is convincing me that there are arguments against women in Parliament. We are all anxious—including, I am sure, the hon. Lady—that we have a fair representation of women so that the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and local government look a little more like the community that they seek to represent.

Mr. David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to have the widest possible pool of talented candidates for the Scottish Parliament? Does he further agree that it is important to allow local government staff—who number more than 25,000 and are currently restricted from standing—the opportunity to stand for the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Dewar: Of course I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making and we are keeping the matter under review. However, very recently the Nolan committee stressed how important it is that councils and the public can rely on a politically impartial service from senior local government officials. That also has to be weighed in the balance. The number who are currently excluded under the rules is around 2 per cent. of those who work in local government in Scotland, but I recognise that there are strong feelings on the issue and we try to keep it under review.

Mr. Salmond: But one substantial difference between the two elections is that the elections to the Scottish Parliament will be carried out by proportional representation, while the local elections are still planned to be decided by the first-past-the-post system. Does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be a splendid opportunity to introduce proportional representation in local government elections in Scotland? Would not such action be the strongest single step towards ending one-party domination and the various problems that beset the Labour party in councils in central Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: I take that remark as a rather touching tribute to the speed with which we have addressed problems of constitutional change in Scotland. However, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that his suggestion is

somewhat impractical. He will know, however, that an independent commission will be set up shortly on which his party is likely to be represented to look at the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government and the ways in which we can strengthen local democracy in Scotland. Obviously, the matter has to be considered carefully, but there may well be people who will try to argue that case, if not in the commission, more generally.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does my righ hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat unfortunate that some Opposition Members show such total ignorance of the workings of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which for many years now has been committed to equal representation of men and women in the Scottish Parliament and which represents Scottish views somewhat more successfully than the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)?

Mr. Dewar: I would not want to pass judgment on the capacity of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) as a representative. That is a matter for her electorate and I congratulate her on having survived and being here, which may be some sort of tribute. So far as I am concerned, the Government and many hon. Members across the range of parties in the House are committed to positive ways of encouraging women into public life.

Mr. Ancram: Given that so few of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends are prepared to give up the comforts of Westminster to stand for the Scottish Parliament and that, consequently, if Millbank tower and the Minister without Portfolio permit, most of the Labour candidates will be drawn from the tired old ranks of Scottish Labour councillors, would it not be fairer if the elections were held on separate days so that they could at least remember which they were standing for?

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman should not be proud of that question as an example of his intellectual rigour. He may be consumed with envy. The Conservative party in Scotland does not have ranks of any sort—tired, old, young or innovative—to draw on.

National Health Service Beds

Mr. Laurence Robertson: What is the number of NHS beds per head of population in Scotland; and what assessment he has made of the per capita provision of NHS beds in Scotland relative to the United Kingdom average. [21719]

Mr. Galbraith: There were 3.3 national health service beds available in the acute sector in Scotland per 1,000 population in 1996–97. The equivalent number for the United Kingdom was 2.5 beds.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he accept that that favourable percentage is due to the financial arrangements that Scotland has had in the United Kingdom? Will those arrangements be sustainable when Scotland has its own Parliament?

Mr. Galbraith: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the financial arrangements are supported by those on the Conservative Front Bench. The figures reflect the


differences between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, including the greater prevalence of disease and the geographical differences. It is proper that such matters should be taken into account anywhere in the country.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister agree that, far from trying to claim credit for the figures, the Opposition should be blamed for the fact that they are necessary? After 18 years of Tory government, the health of the people of Scotland is in a much worse state than before because of the Tories' harsh economic policies and their failure to deal with the damp housing conditions that have resulted in Glasgow having the poorest health statistics in the United Kingdom. If anything, there is a need for more NHS beds, not fewer.

Mr. Galbraith: The problem of the past 18 years was that the previous Government failed to recognise the link between deprivation and ill health, because they found it politically difficult to do so. We recognise that link, we shall tackle it and we shall significantly improve the health of the nation.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In his reply to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), the Minister underscored his understanding of the fact that the per capita provision of hospital beds has to take account of geographical factors as well as other social and economic factors. Will he bear in mind the assurance that he gave me by letter about the continuing provision of full-time surgical services at Broadford hospital on the Isle of Skye? Only this morning, the Highland health board announced its intention to withdraw full-time surgical provision for the Isle of Skye and to replace it with a locum service operating out of, I think, Fort William and Inverness. Given the climate and—as the Minister knows better than most—the number of people who visit the Isle of Skye for climbing and other outdoor pursuits, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue needs to be considered very carefully before any precipitate decisions are taken?

Mr. Galbraith: I certainly do. I know the hospital very well, not just from climbing on Skye, but because I was one of the locum surgeons there for some time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the review is all about having the highest-quality services for patients. That is what I demand from any changes and that will be the only motivating factor in our decisions.

Water Services

Mr. Canavan: If he will return Scotland's water services to local authority control. [21720]

Mr. Macdonald: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House on Tuesday 16 December 1997 on the future of the Scottish water industry. It dealt with the issue of local authority control and provided for stronger and better links between local authorities and water boards under the overall democratic supervision of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Canavan: When will the Government deliver the Labour party manifesto commitment to return Scotland's water services to local democratic control, instead of

playing musical chairs with the quangos left to us by the Tory Government? In the Falkirk area, for example, when water services were in the ownership and management of local government, we had good, forward-looking investment programmes, combined with the lowest water charges in western Europe. Will the Government intervene to prevent the East of Scotland water quango from imposing a 58 per cent. increase in domestic water charges, which would mean an even more exorbitant increase of 144 per cent. over two years?

Mr. Macdonald: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the existence of 32 local authorities after the previous Government's reorganisation means that it is simply not possible or practical to have the kind of direct local authority control that he would like. However, we have increased accountability to local authorities through better links between them and water boards. As for possible price increases, they are a matter for negotiation between the water boards and the customer councils. If there is no agreement, the matter will go to the Secretary of State for arbitration, so I cannot comment further.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Consumers in Tayside face a 38 per cent. increase in water charges in the near future. That is a swingeing increase—the highest in the whole of the North of Scotland area. In view of the Government's pre-election promises, can the Minister not understand the disenchantment of people in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies with both the North of Scotland Water Authority and the Government on that matter?

Mr. Macdonald: For the reason that I have just explained, I cannot comment on particular price rises. However, speaking generally, we have always said that water services will cost more. There are many years of underfunding and under-investment to make up for; that will have to be done through a combination of public and private investment, but also through price increases.

Ferry Services

Mr. Godman: What recent representations he has received concerning the ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne. [21721]

Mr. McLeish: My right hon. Friend has received a number of recent representations concerning ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne. The main subject of representations received recently from my hon. Friend's constituents has been the future of Caledonian MacBrayne's ferry service between Gourock and Dunoon.

Mr. Godman: May I tell the Minister that it is hugely important that Caledonian MacBrayne run an efficient and reliable service, an integral part of which is a well-motivated work force? I do not believe that there would be any problems hanging over the Ballycastle to Campbeltown service had not that odd-job lot on the Opposition Benches, when they were in office, given it to Caledonian MacBrayne to run.

Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his involvement in the issue, and for the discussions that we have already had on those matters. As he is probably aware, the Scottish Office, together with CalMac and Western Ferries, commissioned the consultants Deloitte and Touche to examine future options for the provision of ferry services between Gourock and Dunoon. The consultants are finalising their work in discussion with CalMac and Western Ferries, and the study is expected to be completed in February. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, a meeting was set up recently, but we had to postpone it. I look forward to an early meeting with him and his trade union colleagues to discuss the matter, and others relating to the ferry services in that area.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I thank the Minister for his swift response to my queries about the Portavadie to Tarbert ferry, which was much appreciated by all the bodies involved. I congratulate him on managing to understand the Caledonian brief fairly quickly, considering that he was dropped in at the deep end. Can he say today whether a decision has been made about the connection between Mull, Coll and Tiree—a subject that we discussed recently at St. Andrew's house?

Mr. McLeish: I certainly welcomed the meeting with the hon. Lady; it was part of my fast learning curve on the brief. As I promised her at that time, we are finalising a response to that issue, and I shall have an early meeting with her before any decision is finally arrived at.

School Standards

Miss Begg: What plans he has for raising standards in Scottish schools. [21722]

Mr. Dewar: All our policies on school education are designed to raise standards. I attach particular importance to the action group on standards in Scottish schools which I established last July and which is developing a framework of targets for improvement in schools.

Miss Begg: I welcome that reply. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the keys to improving standards in schools is encouraging young people to learn to read, write and count at an early age? If they can crack the codes of numeracy and literacy at an early age, they can take advantage of the rest of their school careers. Are there any plans to encourage, develop, improve or extend early intervention schemes of the kind piloted in Lothian?

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; we are extremely interested in the idea. There is a consensus in the House and in the education world to the effect that early intervention is extremely valuable, and that action taken in the early stages of a school career can bring great rewards later. That is why we have provided more than £20 million for early intervention in respect of numeracy and literacy, and why we have launched a number of other initiatives, such as alternatives to school exclusion. I hope that they will help and support children who might otherwise fail at school and thus find themselves ill equipped to compete later in life.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Leader of the House was asked—

Modernisation Plans

Dr. Tony Wright: What plans she has to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on legislative procedures in respect of Bills in the current session. [21742]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The House has agreed the first programme motions on Government Bills in relation to the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill. These reflect the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee. A number of Bills are also to be published in draft form, and I hope that some of them will be examined by Select Committees.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on the leadership that she is showing in modernising our procedures. Until we get some serious Bills exposed to the sort of scrutiny that the Modernisation Committee has recommended, however, we shall not be sure that the process is working. I know that my right hon. Friend wants that to happen, but I suspect that there may be Ministers, civil servants and possibly even party managers who do not look kindly on the idea of better scrutiny. But the country wants it and the House wants it, and I urge the Leader of the House to make sure that we get it.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill are important. Significantly, we managed to get agreement on dealing with them in this way. Everyone who serves on the Modernisation Committee is aware that there are differing opinions in the House on how best to go about the scrutiny of other legislation, but we are making progress. I hope that, by publishing several Bills in draft form and allowing Select Committees or some new Committee to examine them, we shall improve the quality of legislation.

Mr. Ian Bruce: When it comes to publishing Bills, the right hon. Lady will know that the Government receive a lot of correspondence to which Departments are supposed to respond within, at most, 20 working days. On 23 October, a constituent of mine wrote to the Government about nursery education; I opened the very simple answer from the Minister today, 20 January. What can the Leader of the House do to ensure that Departments respond to hon. Members' letters in good time—in other words, while the legislation in question is still going through the House?

Mrs. Taylor: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in getting in that question as a supplementary at this point.
I acknowledge that there has been a problem with some Departments—it has been raised with me during business questions. I have invited hon. Members to give me precise details, and on a few occasions I have been given them and have been able to try to get things moving. I am


embarking on a survey in respect of the time taken to answer parliamentary questions and to answer correspondence.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Illegal Drug Use

Mr. Bayley: If she will make a statement about the Government's strategy against illegal drug use. [21743]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What are her priorities in the co-ordination of strategies to deal with drug misuse. [21745]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Keith Hellawell, the United Kingdom's anti-drugs co-ordinator, took up his post full time on 5 January. He will be submitting proposals for a new anti-drugs strategy to me by March, following an extensive consultation process and in the light of a comprehensive spending review. The priorities are likely to be to help young people realise their own potential, protect communities from drug-related crime, provide effective services for drug addicts and restrict the availability of illegal drugs. Once agreed by Ministers, a report on the new strategy will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Bayley: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I support the decision taken by the Government to appoint 300 extra customs officers to prevent illegal drug shipments from entering this country? How sharply that decision contrasts with the policy of the previous Government, who cut the number of customs officers at just the time they were accepting a £1 million donation from a foreign secret source closely connected to the drugs trade. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Leader of the Opposition to give that dirty money back?

Mrs. Taylor: The fact that we reversed the proposed cut in the posts of 300 customs officers shows how seriously we take the drugs problem and how alarmed we are about the amount of drugs coming into the country, which is one reason why hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the recent seizures and the disruption of drug supplies into this country by the enforcement agencies. All of us have been somewhat concerned, to put it mildly, about the reports that have just emerged about the sources of some of the Conservative party's funding.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Lady for her full response. I wish the new drugs tsar every success in the vital and critical work that he is undertaking. Will the right hon. Lady accept that my right hon. and now ennobled Friend, Tony Newton—as we knew him in the House—did a superb job in co-ordinating the response of all Government Departments to the problems of drugs and drug abuse? He brought the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Department for Education and Employment, as well as the Treasury—because of its

responsibility for Customs and Excise—together to co-ordinate their policy on drugs. Will the co-ordination that Tony Newton introduced continue?

Mrs. Taylor: When the previous Government introduced their new approach and the document "Tackling Drugs Together", I was the first on the Opposition Benches to welcome the moves taken by Tony Newton and outlined by the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to build on that strategy and take it several stages further, which is why we are auditing what is spent on drug work in every Department, undertaking proper evaluations and trying to co-ordinate. The big difference is that we are trying to ensure that the causes of drug taking, in particular the early signs of difficulty such as truancy, exclusion from school and joblessness, are tackled as part of the problem.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that her job of controlling drug abuse and educating young people has been made 10 times more difficult due to the fact that—as we now know and as I forecast three months ago—Ma Ching-kwan handed over £1 million to the Tory party? He comes from a family who are recognised drug and heroin dealers in Hong Kong. The family did that because they wanted the father, who had escaped to Taiwan, to be brought back to Hong Kong. They used the offices of David Mellor and of Chris Patten, and they handed over the money in the presence of the former Prime Minister. The Tory party has now got the money, although people say it should hand it back. I am not so sure that that is the brightest of ideas because it would be going back to a known drug dealer. It ought to go to charity.

Mrs. Taylor: I should first congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that point several months ago. Having that information confirmed today proves that the House is right to listen to him on many occasions. He is right to say that it does not make it any easier to get the message across about the dangers of drugs. Although I have heard people saying, even this afternoon, that the money should be given back, I believe that it would not be appropriate to give it back to the donor in this instance. The money should be given to a drug-related charity.

Mr. Loughton: I applaud the President of the Council's firm words on the campaign that we need against drug misuse, but will she acknowledge that the budget of only £300,000 that has been allocated to the drugs tsar, of which his salary and that of his deputy will take up more than half, smacks of tokenism at its worst? What will she promise the House in terms of real resources and policies to tackle this very real menace?

Mr. Bayley: Give us £1 million.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend's point is well made.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be operating under a misapprehension: it is not the job of the so-called drugs tsar to spend money fighting drugs; his job is to advise Government on the proper co-ordination of policy, so that we can make sure that the money spent by the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the Home Office is spent in the most productive way.


The current auditing and evaluation process will be extremely important in helping us to tackle drugs more effectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Leader of the House was asked—

Government Announcements

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What steps she is taking to uphold the rights and privileges of the House in respect of Government announcements. [21744]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Government seek to make all announcements about major changes of policy to the House.

Mrs. Bottomley: There has scarcely been a major Government announcement that has not first been widely leaked and trailed in the press. Is that part of a deliberate policy to erode the rights and privileges of the House and to diminish Parliament? Now that the Budget date has been announced, what specific action has the President of the Council taken to remind Ministers that they are accountable to Parliament and not to the media?

Mrs. Taylor: I often think that Conservative Members, and especially former Cabinet Ministers, have short memories about what they did in government. The situation regarding the number of statements to the House is similar to that which existed under the previous Administration; indeed, I remember that we made complaints from the Opposition Benches about the Department of Health, and I am sure that, if the right hon. Lady casts her mind back, she will also recall that. I doubt whether Ministers need to be reminded of their responsibilities regarding Budget day.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend promise the House that, when the Government make a firm decision to take legislative action to oblige all political parties represented in the House to identify the source of donations—certainly those above £5,000—an early announcement will be made in the House first of all? Is it not absolutely essential that such action should be taken, and that we should deal with all the latest Tory sleaze, including, one should not forget, the stolen money that was received from Asil Nadir and never returned to anybody?

Mrs. Taylor: Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in getting in that point as a supplementary question. When we are ready to act on the public funding

of political parties, announcements will, of course, be made in the normal way, but we have to await the outcome of the Neill inquiry.

Mr. Beith: There is a serious point at the heart of the question. Ought not the Government, in their own interests, to make a more serious distinction between their official statements and the comments of press officers, people who use mobile telephones in pubs in Whitehall and friends of various parties in the Cabinet? Is it not becoming increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish the Government's voice from the unauthorised comments that expose their divisions?

Mrs. Taylor: I suspect that even Liberal Democrats have mobile phones, even if they do not have that many friends. There is great press interest in what is or is not said in various pubs around Westminster, and I would caution everyone to be extremely careful in what they say.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where is your tie?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am not wearing a tie because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not have a brass neck.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just come out of hospital after an operation and has apologised to me because it was not possible for him to wear a tie today. I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to make that announcement.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Although I exempt the Leader of the House from criticism, it is not good enough for her to fob off my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) as she did. I have been in the House for almost 28 years and I have never before known a time in which more announcements have been leaked to the "Today" programme and other media sources. That is not good enough. Will the Leader of the House, based on her excellent example, circulate all her ministerial colleagues and ask them to ensure that every ministerial announcement is made to the House first?

Mrs. Taylor: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place and I am glad that he exempts me from the charges that he makes. However, I take issue with him because I do not think that the situation now is very different from previous times. People are always anxious to try to find out what is going on in the Government. People speculate and sometimes obtain leaks, but there is no systematic leaking in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I remind him that the last time a significant complaint about a leak was made, we found out that the Minister had given a written answer to the question at 3.30 pm, although someone from his party complained when the information was available at 4 pm. We should not always believe all we are told in allegations about leaks.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not there an understanding in the House—although it is not enshrined in "Erskine May"—that before there is any prospect of British service men being committed to military action, the House of Commons has a chance to discuss the merits or otherwise of such action? Against that background—and the carriers going through the Suez canal—I ask whether any Minister has suggested that a statement might be made today on the critical talks between Mr. Richard Butler, who has described them as "the defining moment", and the Iraqi authorities. I know that you have given my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the position of the children of Iraq, but the situation warrants an early statement from a senior Minister.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I take a different point of view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but the point that he made should be carefully considered.
A statement should be made to the House as soon as possible, because then we could have an exchange of opinions, as we have had on previous occasions—including my private notice question on the situation in Iraq. Many of us believe that it is necessary to ensure that we do not give in to the blackmail of the Iraqi dictator and notorious mass murderer. In those circumstances, I would welcome an early statement.

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed, as the House knows, that the Government have sought to make a statement on that matter today. The House will notice that the Leader of the House is present on the Front Bench, and has no doubt heard the points of order that have been put to me on the matter.

Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is the normal expectation in the House that Members who expect to make a financial gain from legislation make a declaration during the passage of that legislation. In the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill, no limits are set on the income of those who may seek to have a dual mandate by sitting in this House and one of the other bodies, or in one of the other bodies alone. I wonder whether you could give us guidance, before Committee stage, that those who seek such a dual mandate should declare their interest before making a speech in the House.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tease the House. When we reach an appropriate stage in the Committee proceedings, he might care to raise the matter so that it can be considered

Parliamentary Boundary Commissions (Amendment)

Mr. Richard Page: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
The Bill stems from my natural care, concern and compassion for my fellow Members of Parliament. The House will remember that, on 1 May, despite the Government of the day having given the country the best set of economic circumstances for decades, the public decided to give a large number of Conservative Members the opportunity to spend more time with their families. That did not happen to me, but from me were taken my red boxes, which I do not much regret, and my ministerial car, which I miss greatly.
When I settled into the spacious green Benches on this side of the Chamber, I looked across and saw an horrific sight: Labour Members—new Labour, old Labour, new Members, old Members—crammed together, cheek by jowl, hip to hip, thigh to thigh, in a most unsatisfactory sardine-like condition. My concern grew when I learned—not many people know this—that 50 Labour Members are sent home every week to spend more time with their families and constituencies because they are not needed in Parliament.
That made me think even more. The conditions on the Labour Benches are sometimes such that, if this was an industry and we had a visit from a health and safety officer, he would not hesitate to close the whole lot down on the ground of unsanitary or unsafe conditions. It is time to start considering reducing the number of Members of Parliament, because the situation has changed.
So much European Union legislation is now done by the Commission or the Council of Ministers that the House just does some rubber-stamping. There is an argument for reconsidering how we handle European legislation. The Scottish Parliament is working its way down the track; it will take time and powers away from the House. The same is true of the Welsh assembly; our next business will remove powers from this House and give them to the Welsh assembly. The various regional bodies that are to be set up will again take power from the House. The amount of legislative work is not as great as it used to be.
Under schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, we cannot have fewer than 613 Members of Parliament. The way that it is set up, with minimum numbers of Members for Scotland and Wales, predicates to the boundary commissioners that every review must mean that the number of seats goes up. We are now at the large number of 659. Over the next four or five Parliaments, it should be reduced to about 400 to 450, with 100,000 people per Member of Parliament.
People will argue that turkeys will not vote for Christmas, but I believe that my Bill would make the job of an MP easier. How many hon. Members have come to the Chamber to demand statements or ask questions and not been called? How many have prepared speeches that have gone undelivered? With fewer colleagues, individual Members would be more satisfied and much more effective. Commensurate efforts would have to be made to ensure that secretarial allowances and Members' salaries were increased because of the extra work.
The overall savings to the House would be about £100,000 per MP, if we consider salary, secretarial allowance and the allowance for living away from the constituency, leading to a total saving of some £23 million. The big saving would be that 200 MPs' offices would no longer be necessary. The strain on the Palace's infrastructure would be reduced. That would lead to much more efficient operation. If we add the reduction in the number of questions that flow through the Table Office to Government Departments, further tens of millions of pounds would be saved.
With changing circumstances, we do not need as many MPs as we have now. There should be about 200 fewer. The Bill would enable the House of Commons to operate much more effectively. I have much pleasure in introducing the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Page, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Quentin Davies and Mr. Richard Shepherd.

PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Richard Page accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 111].

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [19 January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. McFall.]

Following is the report of the Business Committee [19th January]:

That the seven days allotted under the Order [15th January] to proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1 and Clauses 3 to 20
—


Second day
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1 and Clauses 3 to 20, so far as not disposed of
7.00 p.m.



Clauses 21 and 22, Schedule 2, Clauses 23 to 29, Schedule 3 and Clauses 30 to 44
—


Third day
Clauses 21 and 22, Schedule 2, Clauses 23 to 29, Schedule 3 and Clauses 30 to 44, so far as not disposed of
10.00 p.m.


Fourth day
Clauses 45 to 73, Schedule 4 and Clauses 74 to 79
10.00 p.m.


Fifth day
Clauses 80 to 104 and Schedule 5
7.00 p.m.



Clauses 105 to 108, Schedule 6, Clauses 109 and 110, Schedule 7, Clauses 111 to 117 and Schedule 8
10.00 p.m.


Sixth day
Clauses 118 and 119, Schedule 9, Clause 120, Schedule 10, Clause 121, Schedule 11, Clause 122 to 132, Schedule 12, Clauses 133 to 136, Schedule 13 and Clauses 137 to 140
10.00 p.m.


Seventh day
Remaining proceedings
10.00 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

[[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 52,in page 1, line 8, leave out 'an' and insert 'a legislative'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'National Assembly for Wales' and insert 'Welsh Assembly'.
No. 2, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
No. 142, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'for' and insert 'of'.
No. 19, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'Cynulliad Cenedlaethol' and insert 'Senedd Genedlaethol'.
New clause 3—Power of Assembly to make primary legislation—

'.— (1) Where a function has been transferred to the Assembly under section 22, Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that the power to make laws in respect of that function shall be exercisable by the Assembly.
(2) Laws made under subsection (1) shall be known as Acts of the Assembly.
(3) An Act of the Assembly is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.
(4) A provision is outside that competence so far as any of the following paragraphs apply—

(a) it would form part of the law of a country or territory other than Wales.
(b) its effect would be to modify any provision of this Act,
(c) it relates to a function in respect of which Her Majesty has not made an Order in Council under subsection (1), or
(d) it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights or with Community law.

(5) An Act of the Assembly may modify a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament, whenever passed or made, if the modification is otherwise within its legislative competence.
(6) Any provision of an Act of the Assembly is to be read, so far as possible, so as to be within the legislative competence of the Assembly and is to have effect accordingly.
(7) Proposed Acts of the Assembly shall be known as Bills; and a Bill shall become an Act of the Assembly when it has been passed by the Assembly and has received Royal Assent.
(8) The Assembly shall make standing orders setting out the procedures to which a Bill shall be subject.
(9) The validity of any proceedings leading to the enactment of an Act of the Assembly shall not be called into question in any legal proceedings.
(10) Every Act of the Assembly shall be judicially noticed.

(11) This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Wales.
(12) An Order in Council under this section may contain any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions in the form of amendments or repeals or enactments).
(13) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under this section—

(a) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, and
(b) in the case of an Order in Council varying or revoking a previous Order in Council, unless such a draft has also been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.'.

New clause 4—Secretary of State to bring forward tax varying proposals—

'(1) Subject to section (Power of Assembly to make primary legislation), the Secretary of State shall, before making an order under section 148(1) of this Act, lay before Parliament proposals to put in place an income tax varying power for the Assembly.
(2) The tax varying power under subsection (1) shall be limited to a maximum variation of three per cent above or below the prevailing basic rate of income tax for the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Wigley: It is a great pleasure to move the first bank of amendments in the Committee stage of this very important Bill. The Government of Wales Bill will, I hope, provide a new structure of government in Wales, which will enhance democracy and enable the people of Wales to take decisions for themselves in those areas that are committed to the National Assembly Wales; they hope that those decision-taking powers will be adequate to make a difference in their everyday lives.
The amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends, amendment No. 52, refers to our feeling that the assembly should be known as a legislative assembly. Legislative power is a very important power indeed in giving the national assembly the ability to make the difference to which I referred in areas within its competence.
Several other amendments linked with amendment No. 52 deal with the name of the assembly and associated matters, but I shall refer in these opening remarks to the need for legislative powers. In creating a National Assembly for Wales, we are creating a body which I hope will be able to get to grips with issues in Wales on which we need a different policy from that which exists for the United Kingdom as a whole or for England and Wales, within the context of this Chamber.
The logic of creating a national assembly is that, where circumstances are different in Wales, there is a need to be able to follow policies that are different. Under the Bill, the extent of the powers of the assembly will be tied in one direction by financial constraints, in that it will work within a block grant and will have no tax-varying powers. It will be tied in another direction by the legislative framework that has been laid down by Westminster. If it is impossible to move in either direction, the assembly's freedom of action will be very limited indeed.
The areas of competence of the assembly are matters of great importance, such as education, health, local government, language and culture, and many matters in which we in Wales have our own needs and our own characteristics and priorities.
Those differences were recognised by the establishment of the Welsh Office in 1964 and by subsequent policy developments of successive Governments. Since then, legislation has been passed by the House that has been deliberately tabled to deal with the needs of Wales alone. I should like the assembly to have legislative powers of that sort, so I hope that the Bill will be interpreted along those lines. I hope that Ministers will be able to tell us about the extent of the assembly's powers to deal with legislative questions.
The White Paper and the earlier debates on the referendum acknowledged that the assembly will have some legislative functions, for example, to deal with orders—secondary legislation, as it is generally called. It is possible that the Bill's functions relating to, for example, the Welsh Development Agency will, in effect, be equivalent to amending primary legislation. To say the least, such a function requires clarification, so that we know the extent to which that power can be developed. In order to discover exactly what the assembly can do, we need to know the precise role of that legislative capacity. Provision for that exists in the Bill, but we need to know how far that goes.
Four years ago, a Bill was put through the House that dealt exclusively with the local government needs of Wales. The assembly should have the power to deal with such legislation in the future. There may be several ways of doing so, which we can explore. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) will deal with that, should he catch your eye, Sir Alan.
We should consider how the assembly could be linked with the existing legislative process of Westminster, so that policy changes required to legislation on local government, education or the Welsh Development Agency could include an input from our own assembly. Wales should not be totally dependent on this Chamber and this Parliament for any modifications to existing law.
We are aware that Scotland is to have a Parliament with full legislative functions. It will be possible for that Parliament to make full-scale legislative changes in those areas over which it will have competence. If there was a subsequent change in education policy as a result of legislation passed in the House, that would not apply to Scotland, because the Scottish Parliament will pass its own education Acts. The people of Scotland will therefore be safeguarded against a right-wing Government who sought to impose policies contrary to their democratic wishes. They will be able to withstand that.
My understanding is that the Bill does not offer a similar power to Wales. During the referendum campaign, however, I heard Ministers say that it might be possible to stop the enactment of legislation that would otherwise be imposed on Wales by a Government of perhaps a different colour from the current one. The possibility of that power should be explored in Committee, so that those in the assembly know exactly what they could do in terms of promoting legislation and withstanding that which is not wanted by the majority of people in Wales, as reflected by membership of that national assembly.
I want to clarify the legislative role of the assembly, and it is important to bear it in mind that such legislative powers are not draconian. We should remember that, apart from the proposed Scottish Parliament, the Stormont Parliament of Northern Ireland, when it was up and

running, had similar legislative powers, as do the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which can make their own laws.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Stormont was not called the legislative assembly of Stormont. Surely the essential point is that, when one defines, one limits. To call the assembly a legislative one would in part be a deception, because it will be capable of more than that, while having limited legislative powers. Why deceive people?

Mr. Wigley: That is a very interesting interpretation, and if that is the interpretation of Ministers, we shall listen to their comments with considerable interest. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am, that there are Parliaments in other countries that are known as legislative assemblies, for the reason that that term clarifies the fact that the body is the prime body for making legislation as far as the people are concerned. Of course those bodies have other powers—financial, executive and administrative—but the term "legislative assembly" is used in other parts of the world.
My point is that, even if the assembly is not a fully self-governing Parliament—although we on this Bench would like it to be—there is nothing unusual in having a significant legislative role in a Parliament or assembly that is subordinate to another. We see that in the states of the United States of America, in the Lander of Germany, in Australia and in the provinces of Canada. It is important that the National Assembly for Wales should have those powers.
If we have those powers, it will be possible to develop, for example, our education system in Wales in line with the aspirations, values and wishes of the people of Wales. Over the past 100 years, we have seen education as something of intrinsic importance in Wales. Even 100 years ago, Acts of Parliament were passed that had special relevance to Wales, whose legislative provisions gave Wales a different structure in respect of education. Our education in Wales needs that sort of framework to enable it to develop now.
We hope that the assembly will be set up in spring 1999. Suppose we reach a position where the assembly, despite taking a considerable interest in the administration of education and in applying the secondary legislation and orders that are within the framework of laws passed here, cannot pass primary legislation; but we need changes to primary legislation in order to meet the needs of policy in Wales.
Then the assembly will come, by some mechanism—perhaps cap in hand—to Westminster to find the means of getting the legislative change it needs to implement the sort of policy wished for in Wales. I cannot see how that situation is provided for in the Bill, and, without giving fuller legislative power to the assembly, I am not sure whether it can be resolved.
It may be possible to develop some fast tracks, and, if so, all the better; but there needs to be some mechanism. We Back-Bench Members of Parliament know how long we have to wait to get legislative changes made. If the assembly wants and needs change but has to wait year after year to get them, or if it cannot get changes made


that it clearly and manifestly needs and desires, that will build up frustration. There must be a mechanism provided to deal with such situations.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but, so that we can respond more fully to the case he is developing, will he give the Committee one or two examples of the sort of legislative change he believes might be required in future, which would be frustrated by the absence of primary legislative powers in the Bill as it stands?

Mr. Wigley: One can easily give examples relating to local government in Wales. We have had two rounds of changes to local government powers in Wales within my political lifetime—in 1974 and 1994. Legislation passed through this Chamber and was dealt with in Standing Committees. In the most recent instance, the Committee had a majority of Conservative Members, who were not even Welsh Members of Parliament, deciding what sort of local government system we should have in Wales, when they did not have to live with the consequences.
Changes may need to be made in the context of local government—goodness knows, there are weaknesses in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, as the Secretary of State well knows, judging by Labour's criticisms when the Act was being passed. However, if the assembly feels that changes need to be made to the arrangements enshrined in the primary legislation passed in Westminster, as far as I can tell, it will not be possible for the assembly to make those changes.
If the Government have a mechanism whereby draft Bills introduced by the assembly can be fed into the Westminster system, and can guarantee at least that there will be a fair opportunity to debate them in Westminster, it goes part of the way towards achieving what we want. It does not go the full way, because, if a Conservative Government come to power in Westminster, and if the objectives of the legislation introduced by the National Assembly for Wales are not in line with those of the Conservative Government, we may have to wait five, 10 or, in line with our experience in recent years, even 18 years before getting those changes through. That is unacceptable.
Another example that may or may not need full law-making powers is education. I know that Ministers have been considering matters such as the international baccalaureate and have found certain difficulties with it. Such changes have a broad cross-section of support in Wales, albeit one must find the finances to carry them out.
Only a few months ago, we were discussing changes to pre-school education. The last Government introduced a system that could have led to the privatisation of pre-school education, and they would no doubt have gone on to do the same to primary education. If a law is passed by a Conservative Government in Westminster to privatise primary education or bring in a system of dockets to pay for education, we would be unable, without law-making powers, to introduce an alternative system. We might be able to stop the orders, and we would be locked into the Westminster system.

Mr. Ron Davies: We must establish at the outset of the Committee stage that the sort of fast-track system to

which the right hon. Gentleman refers is not provided for in the Bill. It is as well to acknowledge that openly. It is also important to establish at the outset that there will be a developing relationship between the assembly and the Westminster Government. The assembly's success will be judged, by and large, by whether it develops a good working relationship with the Westminster Parliament, because it will continue to rely on the Westminster Parliament for its primary legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman has not yet convinced me, because the two arguments that he has used in respect of education did not require primary legislation. The changes to the examination system and the nursery voucher system would have been carried through by the powers that will be vested in the Welsh assembly, as proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's words. He said that the changes would have been carried out by the assembly through its secondary legislative powers. The assembly may be able to block secondary legislative powers and orders, but could not create an alternative, because it would have to work within the framework of the existing primary legislation. To that extent, it stymies the assembly's powers to develop the education system in line with Welsh values. Nursery or primary school vouchers, or any such system, would certainly be out of line with our needs.
I should be even more concerned, if a Conservative Government carrying out that agenda saw that their agenda for Wales could be blocked through the Welsh assembly's order-making powers, and then created primary legislation to avoid those orders. Our freedom to withstand the legislation would therefore be withheld.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but let us face the brutal reality: if, by some mischance, such an horrific situation should arise and a Conservative Government were re-elected, it would always be open to them to ensure that their writ would run in Wales, just as it can run in Scotland once there is a Scottish Parliament. This Parliament is sovereign and can do whatever it wants, regardless of legislation passed by this Government.

Mr. Wigley: We shall doubtless discuss the sovereignty of Parliament on a future group of amendments. The Secretary of State mentions the Scottish example, and says that the Westminster Parliament could overrule Scotland. This House could take away any devolved regime; it could abolish the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, just as it abolished Stormont and the Greater London council.
Although that is conceivable, in the context of the Scotland Bill, the primary legislative powers being transferred to Scotland will not, once transferred, be interfered with by Westminster on a day-to-day basis. Notwithstanding an acknowledgement that sovereignty still lies in Westminster, there is an acknowledgement that, when those powers are given to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Parliament is expected to use them. There would be no point setting up the system if it was to be double-guessed from Westminster. The Welsh assembly will not have that facility, and that will create frustration.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am following as closely as I can the exchanges between


the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Bill allows the Welsh assembly to block provisions, such as the nursery voucher scheme, by refusing to exercise its order-making power. Is he certain of that, because, from my reading of the Bill, I am not so sure that that is the position?

4 pm

Mr. Wigley: If the hon. Gentleman has doubts about what the assembly will be able to do, I shall listen carefully to his arguments when we explore its order-making powers. At present, order-making powers rest with the Secretary of State and will be transferred to the assembly. A decision by the assembly not to move the commencement orders would prevent orders from being used. Other orders also fall into that category.
I accept that the National Assembly for Wales will be able to prevent provisions from being implemented, but that is a negative role, and I want it to have a creative role, so that ideas that have been bubbling away in Wales in local government, education, health and housing will be able to flourish. If that is true for those areas, how much more true it would be for the Welsh language.
The Welsh Language Act 1993 was dealt with by a Standing Committee which had a majority of Tories who did not represent Welsh constituencies, and who did not know about the prospects and hopes for the language and the need to ensure that we were carrying the whole community with us. Members of the National Assembly for Wales will have that background, because they will be from communities in which that is a material policy. It would be nonsense to have to come to Westminster for the smallest legislative change in the Welsh Language Act 1993 when we have our own national assembly.
The national assembly must have full legislative powers if we are to have a coherent policy. The interface between executive and legislative powers must be clarified. If the national assembly has executive powers but no primary legislative powers, there will be a partial vacuum between the left hand and the right hand, and there is a danger that one will go in one direction and the other in the other direction, especially if there is a difference between the political balance in the assembly in Cardiff, or wherever it may be, and the political balance in the House.
There is also the question of the credibility of the National Assembly for Wales in the context of the European Union. The Secretaries—if that is to be the term—will go to Brussels as part of a United Kingdom delegation dealing with agriculture, the environment, employment and regional policies, which are matters of essential importance to the National Assembly for Wales. If they are regarded as second-class citizens compared with the Secretaries or Ministers of the Scottish Parliament, who will have full, law-making powers under their belt, that will be a retrograde step. The needs of Wales will not have the same credibility as those of Scotland.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more careful when saying that the Scottish Ministers will have full law-making powers, because it is clear that no one other than a representative of this House can represent the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Wigley: That is open to argument. Some people take a different view from that taken by the hon. Member

for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I know what stance he takes on the Scottish Parliament, and although I fundamentally disagree with his view, I cannot but respect it, having heard it over the years from the 1970s to the late 1990s.
It is up to Ministers to clarify the position, but I think I know what the Government intend. The agricultural needs of the Scottish and Welsh communities are different, in terms of balance, from those in England, which are dominated by the requirements of barley and grain fanners in East Anglia. When a Welsh national assembly and a Scottish Parliament are dealing with specific needs of that kind, it will be crazy if those who are in charge of the executive functions in Wales and Scotland are not out in Brussels as part of the team and able to argue the case, and I hope very much that that will happen.
I am merely saying that the credibility of those people will be that much greater if they are accompanied by Ministers, with the full implication of that term—or Secretaries, as they will be called in Wales—rather than just going as people in charge of an administrative and executive function.

Mr. Michael Ancram: The issue is important, and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to raise it.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) says that he understands that the Government will invite Members of the Assembly who have interests in agriculture and fishing to go to the Council of Ministers, and we have heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland that he intends to establish concordats or agreements to allow that to happen. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, in such an important context—in which the voice of Wales and, indeed, that of Scotland will be either heard or not heard in the Council of Ministers—the matter should be left, in the long term, to concordats or agreements? Should not the legislation make the position clear?

Mr. Wigley: I am not sure that it is for me to answer that question; it might be better for a Minister to answer it. I certainly think that we need to understand what the assembly's powers will be—and the Secretaries of the assembly, who will be responsible for the functions concerned, will also need to know the extent of its powers. That stands to reason. The position must be clarified, whether that is done by means of primary legislation—our amendment, along with others, is an attempt to move the agenda forward—by order or through guidelines.
Let me put another point to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I have the impression that it has been acknowledged in regard to the Scotland Bill that, in some circumstances—one thinks of fishing, in the context of Scotland—a Scottish Minister will be able to deliver the United Kingdom vote in the Council of Ministers. If that is so, we shall be looking for similar powers in relation to Wales.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely, in such circumstances, the Scottish Minister would be speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom by agreement, because of the special interest in Scotland. The same applies to forestry. There is only one member of the European Union—the United


Kingdom—and the fact that the United Kingdom chooses to delegate to one or other person responsibility for speaking on a particular subject does not detract from that.

Mr. Wigley: I accept, of course, that the Scottish Minister—or, I hope, the Welsh Secretary—will be speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom. I believe that the Welsh Minister would probably have a higher profile in the context of, for instance, minority languages than any other Minister from the United Kingdom. My point is that, in the context of not only the Council of Ministers itself but the negotiations that lead to decisions in the Council, if we have something that is seen to be less than a legislative assembly, a certain amount of the profile and credibility of our Secretaries who go out there will be diluted.
The National Assembly of Wales—or for Wales; we will come to that in a moment—needs to be capable of developing full legislative powers in regard to certain areas in which Wales clearly has special needs. The Secretary of State referred in an intervention to a programme developing over a period. As the Welsh Office has itself developed over the past 30 years—it was established in 1964—it has been able to bring about functions and responsibilities that may not exist in the assembly during the initial period. If, however, the Secretary of State sees the Bill as it stands as part of the programme to which he refers, that is obviously interesting. We accept that everything cannot come to Wales overnight, and that we have to walk before we can run; but I want some clarification in relation to the legislative function referred to in the amendment.
Finally, let me deal with a subject that, although it is covered in the Bill, seems to be covered in a unique way. I refer to the legislative changes with regard to the Welsh Development Agency Bill. I believe that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and I are the only remaining Members who sat on the Committee that considered the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975.

Mr. Rowlands: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigley: Of course. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister at that time. I may be the only remaining Member who sat on that Committee. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was also there.
The Act was important, and it has developed a body that has undertaken an important function for Wales, but the agency needs changing, and changes need to be made to that primary legislation. Those changes are included in the Government of Wales Bill. If people find that similar changes are needed to primary legislation with regard to other bodies in Wales or to other areas of Government policy in Wales, will it be possible to use powers similar to those defined in the Bill for the WDA with regard to those other matters? That is a facility to change primary legislation.
I want to understand whether it will be possible for the assembly to say that other primary legislation needs to be dealt with in this way in order to create the structures—

as in the case of the agency—or the policies within which bodies operate in other contexts to meet the requirements of Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: As the right hon. Gentleman is asking a specific question, perhaps I can resolve the matter. There will be a dynamic relationship between the assembly and whichever Government are in Westminster. If the Welsh assembly wishes to make such a submission, I would hope that there would be a reasonable relationship between the assembly and the British Government—the Westminster Parliament—to allow those arguments to be voiced. Ultimately, however, it would be a matter for the British Government and then this British House of Commons to decide whether they wished to give those powers to the assembly. It would be for this Parliament to give it those powers.
It is not possible at this stage to give a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentleman or to say that that is what would happen, but, if he were to want that to happen, it would be for the assembly or the Welsh Secretary to ensure that the British Government adopted that as their policy, and to introduce appropriate legislation before this Parliament.

Mr. Wigley: I have listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said and I will want to read Hansard to ensure that I have understood his words and that what is on the record is clear and undisputed. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that, if, to meet other aspirations, there is a need to change this legislation after it goes on to the statute book, another Act will need to go through Westminster—through the House of Commons and the House of Lords—to give the National Assembly of Wales the powers it may seek.
A Government may be in power here who are willing to give time for such an amendment to the Act, or a Government may be in power who have been in office for 18 years and who are not willing to give the time. If the latter is the case, we have a serious problem.
There should be some mechanism whereby, if the National Assembly of Wales expresses in clear-cut terms the desire for legislation to be passed here, that desire has some precedence and can make some progress. It should have some status, despite the fact that it may not represent the view of the then majority party in the House of Commons. If we do not have that, clearly we are totally at the mercy of the majority party in the House of Commons in relation to any such legislative change.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Bearing in mind the narrow majority—some people might say the minority—of people in Wales who voted for the very limited powers of the present assembly, does the right hon. Gentleman—being the great and wonderful democrat that he is, and believing in the people of Wales—think it appropriate that any extension of powers should not be fought for on the Floor of the House, but should go back to the people of Wales in a referendum?

Mr. Wigley: Conservative Members seem to agree with that intervention by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who I am glad to see has entered the Chamber and joined our debate. Very soon after the referendum, I heard him say that he believed that the


referendum had been held, that a decision had been made, and that the important matter now was to build the best possible National Assembly for Wales. I whole-heartedly agree with him in that aspiration—which, in tabling our amendment, we are attempting to realise. I have heard him criticise the assembly, which was proposed by the Labour party, because it was not strong enough or a real Parliament. Our amendment provides an opportunity for him to join us in the Lobby—to show that he is committed to gaining that real Parliament that will do the real job that is needed for the people of Rhondda and elsewhere. I welcome his intervention.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Given what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the referendum result, does he not feel that, for the reassurance of the people of Wales, there really should be a judicial inquiry into polling irregularities? Given the narrowness of the referendum majority as recorded, would not he and Plaid Cymru feel much more confident if we could all see that those results were thoroughly checked?

Mr. Wigley: That is a complete red herring, and a completely unnecessary detraction from the debate. If Conservative Members felt that strongly about the matter, where were they in the two months after the referendum? They had to be goaded into taking any action on the matter by an article in The Scotsman; goodness only knows why it appeared in that newspaper initially, but so be it.
A decision has been taken, and, as hon. Members on both sides of the House—even Conservative spokesmen—have said: it is now time to establish the best possible National Assembly for Wales. We must now establish an assembly that works effectively and efficiently and that meets all the needs of Wales, although everyone will not agree with all the details in establishing it.
Our amendment states that, if we are to be clear about the assembly's role, there will have to be a clearer statement of the meaning of the legislative powers provided in the Bill. We believe that, in establishing the National Assembly for Wales, we will get to grips with the needs of the people of Wales only by including in the Bill primary legislative powers for at least some subjects. I therefore recommend our amendment, and I shall listen with considerable interest to the comments by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee, and to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Rowlands: The interesting speech made by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) prompts me to speak. Like him, I should like to clarify the situation. We did not propose in the White Paper—or to the Welsh people—that the Welsh assembly should be a law-making body and make primary legislation. I think that he will accept that that was not the basis on which we sought the people's assent and consent. His case is that amendment No. 52 is a paving amendment that would extend the Welsh assembly's scope to include making primary legislation.
In the White Paper and in the Bill, we proposed a legislative character for the assembly in the form of order-making powers. I was interested in the right hon.

Gentleman's interpretation of those powers. He said that the Bill provides at least the power to block implementation of legislation from the Westminster Parliament and that it would be possible for an assembly to refuse to move or authorise a commencement order for a Bill—which would be one of the most effective ways to negate legislation from the Westminster Parliament.
If that interpretation of the proposed legislative power is correct, it will be a considerable negative legislative power and it does not require the adjective "legislative" proposed by amendment No. 52. The right hon. Gentleman gave the example of education and said that if an assembly had existed it would have been possible to prevent any nursery voucher scheme. I should be very grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will confirm that the Bill contains such a power.
Sadly, we must not stray from the subject of the amendment, but I have a horrible feeling that clause 41, one of the most important and confusing in the Bill, may not receive the scrutiny that it deserves. It deals with a complicated matter. I realise that I cannot bring the debate forward, but as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon raised the issue of what functions were or should be in the Bill, I feel that we should have some clarifying statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as to the legislative nature of the Welsh assembly and its order-making powers.
Do the powers go as far as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon suggests? Will it be possible for the Welsh assembly to negate the effective implementation of any form of legislation from Westminster by refusing to move the relevant orders?

Mr. Wigley: It would be able to block only legislation that required orders. It would be in the hands of the Westminster Parliament to create primary legislation that did not require such orders.

Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate that explanation, but if the United Kingdom Parliament wanted to get around the powers of the Welsh assembly, it would have to reverse the development of shorter primary legislation with considerable order-making powers that has been the pattern of legislative change in the past 50 years.
Many Acts require commencement or implementation orders. Is the power to negate any legislation from the United Kingdom Parliament in the Bill and, therefore, within the legislative capacity of the assembly?

Mr. Ron Davies: In a sense, my hon. Friend has answered his own question as he has said that legislation takes many different forms. Those different forms of legislation can confer different powers on the assembly. That is the essence of secondary legislation. It will be for primary legislation to identify the powers of the assembly to deal with secondary legislation. It is a matter not just of blocking, although that may arise, but of the powers that will be available to the assembly to create distinctive secondary legislation, which might be quite different from the parallel secondary legislation that applies to England, to meet Welsh needs.

Mr. Rowlands: I followed closely what my right hon. Friend said. I can see how a Welsh assembly might exercise order-making powers within the framework of


the primary legislation to create secondary legislation that is different from that which applies to England. Does the term "different from" go as far as making it possible to for the assembly to negate any part of the primary legislation or to prevent it from being implemented, for example by refusing to move a commencement order, or will the United Kingdom Parliament reserve the exclusive right to move commencement orders? Will primary legislation list a series of orders that the United Kingdom Parliament will implement, rather than leave the decision to the Welsh assembly, even in respect of areas and functions that have been transferred to the assembly?

Mr. Davies: The areas and functions being devolved to the assembly are not relevant to the argument. If we do not reach clause 41, I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend to ensure that by the time the Bill is enacted any outstanding questions that he might have are properly addressed.
I must refer back to my hon. Friend's original question. The answer will depend on the primary legislation enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament. It is quite possible, in one Session of Parliament, to pass half a dozen Acts that give the assembly different powers that might or might not require commencement orders. It will depend on the nature of the legislation and the decision of the House as to which powers are given to the assembly and how they can be exercised.

Mr. Rowlands: I understand that. I shall read carefully what my right hon. Friend has said, but I should like a simple answer to a simple question arising from what the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said. Let us consider primary legislation passed in the House of Commons with a series of orders, including commencement orders, the drafting and enactment of which fall to the Welsh assembly. Will the assembly have the power not to implement the relevant parts of that legislation by not moving the commencement orders or seeking to amend them in such a way that they become not just different from but contradictory to the original legislation?

Mr. Davies: I shall take advice and let my hon. Friend know if my answer is not correct, but I think that it depends on whether the primary legislation says "may" or "shall". If the primary legislation offers the assembly discretion, it can exercise that discretion. If the House of Commons says that it shall make a commencement order, no such discretion will be available to the assembly.

Mr. Rowlands: That is a useful clarification. I am interested in that phrase, "different from". How limited is the order-making power? The right hon. Member for Caernarfon suggested that it would be more than possible for the assembly to block measures. That is the phrase that has prompted me to respond. Is it possible for the assembly to block orders for which it has been given responsibility, resulting in aspects of primary legislation never being implemented?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I should also like to know the answer to the question that he has just asked. He is dealing with possible future legislation. The Secretary of State said that

it is up to the House what it passes and what form the order-making power takes. What happens with existing legislation that has a commencement order that has not yet been exercised or operated by order? Will the Welsh assembly be able to block that without the House being able to do anything about it?

Mr. Rowlands: I have no answer to that. I am seeking clarification of what the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said. It would be useful if Ministers could say how far the legislative powers in the Bill go. Having said that, I cannot possibly support the amendment.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am relieved that the Committee stage of the Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House. The Government, in the guise of their earthly presence, the Secretary of State for Wales, have finally come off their high horse and conceded the importance of discussing this major constitutional issue on the Floor of the House. That is important because it is also an acceptance that this is not simply a Welsh issue, but a United Kingdom issue. All United Kingdom Members of Parliament will have an opportunity to have their say on the Bill.
A source close to the Secretary of State, no less, has been reported in the newspapers as saying that the Conservative party has rolled over and died on the issue. That is wrong. We shall give the Bill careful scrutiny and make constructive suggestions, as our amendments show. We shall speak out on areas in which we feel that the Bill can be improved to serve the Welsh people better. Taking a constructive role in proceedings on the Bill does not detract one jot from our desire for democracy in Wales to be properly served.
A sour smell will hang over the Bill, the Act and the assembly, once established, because of the Secretary of State's refusal to hold a proper, independent inquiry into the conduct of the count of the Welsh referendum vote. The Secretary of State says that with some of our amendments, including amendment No. 10, to which I shall speak, we are looking to wreck the Bill. We do not want to do that, or to tarnish the name of the assembly, wherever it is to be sited, but we say that the Secretary of State's stubbornness in not agreeing to an independent judicial inquiry will tarnish the good name of the assembly—

The Chairman: Order. We are looking forward rather than looking back.

Mr. Evans: Thank you, Sir Alan. What we are looking forward to, surely, is not only the establishment of the assembly, or whatever it may be called—that is the concern of the amendment to which I am speaking—but its good name, irrespective of what its actual name is when the Bill becomes an Act.
I shall now speak to amendment No. 10, if I may. In terms of the good name of the assembly, most of the amendments before us could be described as "scratch it and see" amendments. We scratch them and see what really lies behind the raison d'etre of the assembly. The nationalists have taken off the kid gloves and the pretence; all they want is there for us to see.
If any one factor has been established from the beginning, it is the muddle in which the Bill finds itself. More questions will be asked than answers given. I hope that we shall hear some proper clarification from the Secretary of State. I am sure that the nationalists would love it to be a legislative assembly with primary law-making powers. They are pushing at the edges of the Bill.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: rose—

Mr. Evans: We can forget the White Paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way in a second.
We can forget the White Paper; we can forget what was put before the Welsh people and what was said about legislative powers in the version of it that went into every Welsh home during the referendum campaign. The nationalists would like matters to be pushed even further.

Mr. Dafis: I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman would clarify whether he is talking about the Welsh nationalists or the British nationalists who sit on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Evans: That is an interesting point. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can start to meddle with the constitution without there being an impact on the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole, he is mistaken. Not only Conservatives have been raising questions about various aspects of the United Kingdom constitution since we have gone down the route of devolution; Labour Members, too, will ask those questions. They are legitimate questions that need to be asked.
The nationalists would like us to go further. They are pushing for primary legislative powers and for the Welsh assembly to be turned into a full Parliament—but that is not what the Welsh people voted for, nor what they were offered in the White Paper. Half of those who were asked did not vote at all, and half of those who voted, voted no. Only one in four of the Welsh people wishes to go down that route. That is not a clear endorsement for jumping out of the pan into the fire.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has already been on his feet for five minutes and we have a fairly tight timetable in which to debate all the clauses in the Bill. We are now dealing with particular amendments and, as the hon. Gentleman has been making a Second Reading speech for five minutes, he should now address himself to the amendments before us.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That should be the case for the whole Committee. The amendments before us are the matters to which we should pay attention.

Mr. Ancram: Who is running the show?

The First Deputy Chairman: I am; do not worry about that. We should confine ourselves to the amendments before us.

Mr. Evans: I am indeed referring to amendment No. 10—we are talking about the name of the assembly.

The problem is that the Secretary of State for Wales likes to close down debate whenever he can. He may be good at bullying members of his own party, but he will not be so successful at bullying members of other parties—or the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Rogers: It is no good going over old arguments again: the referendum result is known. What is critical remains: the relationship between this Parliament and the Welsh assembly when it comes to legislative issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has dramatically asked whether the assembly will have just a blocking power or whether it will be able to initiate secondary legislation. We desperately need to tackle that problem, because it is fundamental to the working of the assembly. My view is that the assembly should have more powers, but for goodness' sake let us return to the argument.

Mr. Evans: We are seeking clarification of the issue—indeed, the Secretary of State said that he himself was seeking clarification at one stage

Mr. Davies: indicated dissent.

Mr. Evans: That is how I remember what he said at any rate. What the assembly will be and what its name will be are important matters. That is why the nationalists want to call it a legislative assembly; it is also why we have tabled our amendment, which maintains that that is the wrong way to go. The Welsh people do not want it either.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman has thanked the Government for acceding to the Opposition's request to deal with the Bill on the Floor of the House. Does he find it disappointing that, of the 600 Members of Parliament who do not represent constituencies in Wales, only five are present in the Chamber, two of them on my side of it?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Evans: What disappoints me is the fact that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is here to participate in the debate—

Mr. Wigley: He is a Welsh Member.

Mr. Evans: Funnily enough I am too, although I do not represent a Welsh constituency.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Since the hon. Gentleman seems incapable of making his point, I shall make it for him. His amendment would delete the word "National" in relation to Wales. Does not that reflect the fact that the Conservative party is incapable of recognising that Wales is a nation and should be


recognised as such? The Tories fail to recognise the fact that various nations make up the United Kingdom, which is a unitary state.

Mr. Evans: I shall come in a moment to what the White Paper called the assembly, but I want first to deal with the Liberal Democrats' amendments—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Wales is not a nation?

Mr. Evans: That is not what is behind our amendment. I want later to refer to the White Paper the Government published and sent out to people's homes during the referendum campaign.
The Liberal Democrats' amendments are more subtle than their new clauses, the contents of which border on self-delusion. The Liberal Democrats want to call the assembly a senedd—[Interruption.] I hope that the Secretary of State will listen, because I am discussing the name of the assembly, which the Government have changed since the time of the referendum. They now want to call it the National Assembly for Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State does not mind our discussing the final name of the assembly in Committee. I understand that he is grappling with the problems of where to site the assembly. Meanwhile, we are talking about what to call it. The Liberal Democrats want to call it a senedd, which is the Welsh word for Parliament.

Mr. Davies: I must explain the cause of my mirth to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not feel that it is presumptuous for him to be dealing with the points that the Liberal Democrats will presumably argue when they have not yet had the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Evans: No, I know no shame. I have learnt that from watching how the Secretary of State behaves both inside and outside the Chamber; I have had a good master.
It would be a mistake to call the Welsh assembly a senedd because that is the Welsh word for Parliament and it will be anything other than a Parliament. It is premature and naive to go down that road because that would only be playing the names game. We do not believe in deluding the Welsh people or anyone else and it would be an insult to call it a senedd.

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman should understand that Welsh words were not coined to translate English words—or, indeed, French words, which is what Parliament is. The Welsh word senedd is derived from the Latin word senate and has its own meaning. There is no reason why it should be seen as a translation of an English word.

Mr. Evans: I am glad of that clarification. That is lesson in Welsh number one. I am sure that we will have many more during the passage of the Bill. I understand that senedd does not mean a talking shop or an assembly. The senedd was always deemed to be the body that would be there if Wales went down the independence route and thus had its own Parliament. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)

came to Wales in the 1970s, he was welcomed by some Welsh nationalist demonstrators calling for "Senedd i Gymru", or "A Parliament for Wales". I am sure that the meaning has not changed that much in the intervening period.

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. We have been sitting here for some time waiting for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to refer to the amendments tabled by the Conservative party. We have not yet heard one reason why "Welsh Assembly" should replace the name in the Bill. Can we please hear why it should?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking to amendments in the group. It makes no difference to me whether he is speaking to his own amendment, as long as the audit is one of the group before the Committee.

Mr. Evans: Thank you for your welcome protection, Mr. Martin. It is nice to see the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) revisiting the House to make his contribution. He should refer to the Government's White Paper—[Interruption.] It is important because, first, it talks about
A Voice for Wales: The Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly",
to which amendment No. 10 refers. Then, referring to remarks made in the House it states:
The referendum offers the people of Wales a new beginning, alongside other successful economic regions"—
not economic nations, but regions. We must look at the way in which the Secretary of State refers to Wales, because he signed that foreword.
What is important is how the Welsh people refer to the assembly once it is set up. Will they call it the National Assembly for Wales, or the National Assembly of Wales? Will they call it the senedd or the Welsh assembly? I shall try to introduce a little common sense into what at times is a desert of national thinking. The Welsh people will, I suggest, call it the Welsh assembly. It is a little like Cardiff Arms park. It is all very well taking it down, turning it round and rebuilding it and then trying to call it the millennium stadium, or something bordering on that, but what will the people of Wales call that rugby stadium? Will they call it Cardiff Arms park? I suspect that that is exactly what they will do—or, perhaps, new Cardiff Arms park, rather like calling the Labour party new Labour.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly out of touch with Wales. He seems to be unaware of our great Welsh gift for abbreviation. Hence, the crematorium is the crem and my leisure centre is the lesh. It will certainly not be called the Welsh assembly. It will be the assembly.

Mr. Evans: I am delighted that the hon. Member finished off his comparison. After crematorium became crem, I thought that assembly might become something completely different [Laughter.] Thank you, I am here all week folks.
I hope that we will get some common sense. There is no reason why it should not be called the Welsh assembly. I understand that there may well be a legal problem with


translating "Welsh assembly" into Welsh as someone may have the copyright to the Welsh version—one cannot have a copyright to the English version of the Welsh assembly. Perhaps the Secretary of State has more information about that and can enlighten us if that is why it is not being called the Welsh assembly. At least the people of Wales and the people of Cardiff, although they voted no, will refer to it as the Welsh assembly, irrespective of whether it is sited in Cardiff, Swansea, north Wales or somewhere else.
Another amendment in the group refers to tax-raising or tax-varying powers for the assembly. That brings us back to the subject of whether we are to have an assembly or a Parliament. The people of Wales did not vote for tax-varying powers. They saw what they were offered in the White Paper. They were not offered the parliamentary version, but they certainly would not have gone down that route. I do not believe that they would have gone down the route of tax-varying powers either.
Today, I was speaking with some of the farmers who are lobbying Parliament about farm incomes, which have dropped 50 per cent. in a short time. They face one of the bleakest crises ever. Some of them may be listening to our debate and others will no doubt read about it avidly tomorrow in the newspapers. It is appalling for us to be talking about burdening them with extra taxes when their incomes have fallen. This is one reason why the Government never suggested tax-raising powers for Wales—because the assembly will not be the same as the Scottish Parliament. Judging from some of the amendments, however, that Parliament is what some hon. Members want to mimic. It has primary legislative and tax-varying powers, but the Welsh assembly has none of that. We are witnessing moves to give the assembly something that the Welsh people did not vote for, by stealth and without the endorsement of the Welsh people.
I fear for the Severn bridge if we go down that route and if a 3 per cent. tax-varying power is given to a Welsh assembly. Taxes would go only one way—up. I cannot envisage that they would go down if the Welsh assembly were given that power, particularly given the Barnett formula. Many taxpayers in England would have something to say if they thought that their money was subsidising one part of the United Kingdom where people's taxes were going down.

Mr. Richard Livsey: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the former Member for Conwy said at the time of the referendum vote and the win for the yes campaign that he thought that the Government's proposals did not have enough teeth and that tax-varying powers would be a great advantage? Indeed, the attraction of a reduction in tax is that it would make Wales a tax haven.

Mr. Evans: I am not sure which is the greater delusion, calling the assembly a senedd—a Parliament—or thinking that if it had tax-varying powers one of its first measures would be to reduce taxation on the Welsh people. I suspect that it would not be, particularly given the demands that would be made on public expenditure in Wales. Irrespective of what the Liberal Democrats say, there is only one way that taxation would go. It is bizarre

for a party that thought that putting a penny on the basic rate of income tax was the answer to all evils at the general election to talk in such a way.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Why is the hon. Gentleman so frightened of trusting a Welsh senedd or assembly with the authority to make decisions that would surely be supported by the majority in Wales—otherwise the individuals would be voted out of office?

Mr. Evans: When 73.4 per cent. of people in Scotland voted yes to the Parliament, only 63.5 per cent. voted yes to tax-varying powers. We can see the gulf. We must remember that only one in four of the Welsh people voted for the assembly. I shudder to think how many would vote for that assembly to have tax-varying powers. I cannot imagine it happening.
If we were to go down that route, the number of holiday homes in Wales would grow dramatically as people vacated Wales and moved just east of the border to take advantage of the tax haven in England. Let us have some common sense and ditch any idea of calling the Welsh assembly anything other than what it is: a Welsh assembly.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Amendment No. 142 would delete the word "for" and insert the word "of". There is no deep philosophical or metaphysical reasoning behind it. I simply thought that the draftsman had made a mistake. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) also made a mistake, referring to the National Assembly for Wales four times as the National Assembly "of" Wales. Perhaps he does not like the fact that it is "for" and not "of" Wales.
Draftsmen do not usually make mistakes, but even Homer sometimes nods, as somebody or other told us in a poem years ago. Perhaps it is a mistake or perhaps it is a subtle piece of drafting. I do not know what instructions were conveyed. I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is getting restive.

Mr. Ron Davies: I was getting comfortable.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend is smiling, but he does not look comfortable. I do not intend to give way to him yet, but I am sure that he would like to come to the Dispatch Box immediately. I do not understand the words, "National Assembly for Wales". I understand "Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru", which I would translate as "National Assembly of Wales". In French no doubt we would have the National Assembly "of" France. I cannot imagine the French saying "for".

Mr. Wigley: Or the Germans.

Mr. Davies: Or the Germans. It would be one long word in German, with a verb at the end, as in Latin.
If there is a national assembly that is for Wales, there must be another national assembly somewhere. "National" cannot refer to Wales in that context, whereas "National Assembly of Wales" would refer to Wales's own assembly. What is this national assembly that is "for" Wales? Perhaps my right hon. Friend could explain.
Did the Lord Chancellor, with his acute brain, honed at the Bar—for vast fees, we are told, but I do not know about that—say that we could not have the National


Assembly "of" Wales because of the question of sovereignty? Perhaps the Welsh National party should have tabled amendment No. 142.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench. Perhaps he would like to intervene. He may have had something to do with the decision. I do not remember whether this subtle bit of drafting was contained in the legislation for the putative—very putative—assembly in 1978.
I suspect that there has been no mistake, and that it is a deep point. Clearly, "National Assembly for Wales" sends a signal, especially to the nationalists, that sovereignty resides in the House. Otherwise, the draftsman would have put "of". What does "National" refer to in "National Assembly for Wales"? It is pretty meaningless. Is it a British national assembly? There is no such thing as a British nation, as Mr. Gwynfor Evans used to remind us a long time ago.
Why the convoluted formulation? It does not trip easily off the tongue, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said. Why cannot we simply say, "National Assembly of Wales"? It is much better English, and much clearer. Why should it be "for"?

Mr. Livsey: I will now give what I believe to be the correct version of the Liberal Democrat amendments and their meaning. Amendments Nos. 2 and 19 refer to the name of the assembly, suggesting the use of the word "Senedd"; new clause 3 would give the assembly legislative powers; and new clause 4 refers to income tax and the ability to vary taxation.
"Senedd" refers to a senate, and if it was good enough for Owain Glyndwr in Machynlleth, it is good enough for us. It is an accepted bilingual word in Wales that has been known for many centuries and has a meaning for both English and Welsh speakers. It is a simple description. Obviously, it implies that the body has rather more powers than are given in the Bill, but it is our view that the assembly, or senedd, should aspire to a status that is meaningful for a national legislature. The description is dependent on new clause 3 and amendment No. 52.
We believe that amendments Nos. 2 and 19 would provide a far better distinction, avoiding confusion both with a Scottish Parliament and with regional assemblies in England. The changes would make it absolutely clear that it was a Welsh body and the word "senedd" is easy for everybody to pronounce. We all know about the Senate in America and the part that Welsh people played in constructing the constitution of the United States more than 200 years ago. That means a great deal to people in Wales.

Mr. Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman's idea closer to the model of the Senate in the United States or the one in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Livsey: I do not want to go into such deep territory. There are certainly similarities with the Senate in the United States, but the Government of southern Ireland have been reasonably successful with their constitution.

Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the names of most national assemblies and Parliaments of

various countries are known to the rest of the world by the name for a Parliament in their own languages? There is only one Knesset, one Duma, one Riigikogu and one Seimas. Is it not inevitable that the press will refer to the Welsh assembly as the senedd, because the press find irresistible the use of two syllables instead of six? While of course I will always loyally support Ministers, it is inevitable that whatever we decide today, the press and the world will know the Welsh assembly as the senedd.

5 pm

Mr. Livsey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that will inevitably occur and, knowing the ways of the press, might occur rather more quickly than some hon. Members think.
New clause 3 mirrors amendment No. 52 and would give the assembly the power to legislate. It would bring to the fore the ability of the assembly to introduce Bills and to create Acts. Those may be voted on at the end of the Committee stage. The new clause would also give the assembly the power to make primary legislation. I shall not rehash the debate that we have already had about amendment No. 52, but the Welsh assembly will have powers over many areas that have distinctive features in Wales and may require special attention. For example, hon. Members have mentioned education, and we have a long and honourable track record in Wales of pioneering in education. It is sad that education in Wales does not currently reflect its past glories, but a recent turnaround has displayed signs of hope. We have an honourable tradition in education in Wales and many excellent people have been involved.
Another example is agriculture. Welsh farmers, some of whom came here today, are distinctive: their holdings are roughly half the size of those in England and they depend heavily on family labour. A Welsh assembly might need to address the problems of Welsh agriculture, including legislation from Europe. Housing, too, is an area that could be covered, as the housing stock in Wales is the worst in the United Kingdom. Much work has been done, but we still have poor housing that affects the health of the people. The health service needs of Wales are also distinctive. The health of people in Wales, especially in the south Wales valleys, is poor, as we heard yesterday at the meeting in Cardiff of the Welsh Affairs Committee. We have a great natural resource in water, which was privatised in the 1980s. Long-term agreements were made and leases of 999 years granted, so the Welsh assembly might like to legislate on water. Similarly, we have an abysmal transport system, especially the public transport infrastructure. Understandably, this Parliament has not been minded to take a great interest in the transport infrastructure in Wales because hon. Members who represent other parts of Britain do not use that system. if they did, they would be back here quickly to do something about it.
Economic development is also important. We have tabled new clause 3 because we want the Welsh assembly to have a status worthy of Wales and to earn the respect of the Welsh people. Such an assembly is more likely to be successful. The assembly, in its present form, might not be able to achieve all that it would want and might be just a talking shop. In new clause 3, we are trying to push forward the boundaries and we shall seek to put it to a vote.
New clause 4 has already been mentioned, and I will not go into it in more detail. The new clause refers to tax-raising powers, which we feel are important for a legislature of the type that we support. Liberal Democrats are federalists and we believe in the devolution of power to the regions and countries of Britain.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has spoken twice of tax-raising powers. I know that the Liberal Democrats believe in tax raising, but the new clause refers to tax-varying powers.

Mr. Livsey: For once, I accept the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's comments. As I said earlier, we could have reductions in tax.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: It is ironic that Conservative Front Benchers should make that pedantic semantic point given that, although the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) campaigned vigorously throughout the length and breadth of Scotland for a no vote, I did not hear him once use the phrase "tax-varying powers"; he always referred to tax-raising powers.

Mr. Livsey: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) also visited Wales and argued that the Welsh assembly was not powerful enough because it would not have tax-varying powers. He said one thing in Scotland and the opposite in Wales.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The argument about devolution and federalism is complicated. Most federations are composed of regions that have given up part of their powers to the centre for purposes of common use. Devolution is more a matter of a central authority giving some of its power to lower levels. Devolution and federalism are different concepts and the ease with which they are blurred, especially in Liberal thinking, is a mistake.

Mr. Livsey: There is nothing blurred about Liberal thinking. It is clear that what was achieved in the last century through federalism in Australia, Canada and the United States owes much to Liberal philosophy, because it involves constructing powers that can best be exercised at the appropriate level of government. Devolution, in this centralised country in which we live, is about giving powers back to the people so that they can exercise them in the detailed knowledge of what is happening locally. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he has said that he wants to give away powers to the Welsh assembly and he is right to do so.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman see any contradiction between the wish to give additional, devolved powers to a Welsh assembly and another aspect of Liberal philosophy—the wish to centralise decision making in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable European central bank?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must keep to the subject of the amendments.

Mr. Livsey: Thank you for your assistance, Mr. Martin. I shall say only that our amendments are

important in respect of the description of the assembly, its legislative powers and its ability to vary taxes. They would create a senedd with real powers worthy of the aspirations of the people of Wales.

Mr. Rogers: I shall briefly deal with the title "legislative" proposed in amendment No. 52. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said earlier, the matter is tied up with clauses 41 and 42. There is a real dilemma, beyond talking about silly name changes, about exactly what the assembly will do. There is confusion about whether it will have the power to vary legislation only if such a power is given in every Act that goes through this Parliament or whether it will have a general catch-all power to vary what happens in Wales in respect of all legislation.
Having read clauses 41 and 42, which I hope we will eventually reach, I am more confused than I was when I started. I support the proposal that the assembly should be a legislative assembly because I do not want an assembly that has no more than the power to vary nursery vouchers, for example, or an assembly that is falsely said to have powers that it does not in fact have. One Minister has said that we would not have had the miners' strike if we had had a Welsh assembly; he needed reminding that the strike started in Nottingham. It has been said that we would not have had the effects of Thatcherism with a Welsh assembly, as though the Severn bridge would have cut off the disease of Toryism and Thatcherism at that line. The proposed assembly will not do that for Wales, unfortunately. It will not have the necessary legislative or tax-varying powers. It will not be able to do anything for the economic development of Wales because it will not have the power.
I should like the assembly to have legislative power, but I think that the Welsh nationalists—I must be careful to use parliamentary language—are being a little devious. They have their agenda: a separate Wales with its own Parliament and legislative powers. That is an honest position but it has nothing to do with this debate. What was put before the people of Wales was the proposal that there should be an assembly with the powers contained in the Bill. After all the cuddling that the leader of Plaid Cymru has done over the past few months, he ought to cwch up a little closer now and vote with us.

Mr. Dafis: In responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the Secretary of State asked for examples of how primary legislative powers would be useful and of how their absence would be a disadvantage. I thought that I would give some examples involving education.
It is clear that the key task for the assembly, in the context of the priorities that the Government have set, will be to create a first-rate school system in Wales. I shall stick to schools for the moment, and not consider higher education. Our purpose must be to raise standards so that we have the best in the world. That is part of the Government's rhetoric, and I strongly identify with that. The question is whether the assembly will have the necessary powers to achieve such aims.
The previous Government decided that the means to drive up standards in schools was the creation of a competitive market. That was the logic that they applied to the education system, believing that it would achieve


the purpose. Parents choosing schools, schools selecting pupils and league tables are all part of the same mechanism. In many ways, the present Government are still pursuing that agenda. The School Standards and Framework Bill has many similar provisions. Without going into the rights and wrongs of that approach in principle, I believe that it is not likely to yield results in Wales. The geography and demography of Wales mean that parents cannot be provided with the significant choice between schools that they need to make decisions on the basis of the standards that schools can offer. It is not a useful mechanism for Wales. We need another approach, but one that nevertheless emphasises excellent standards.
We inherited from the previous Government's reforms a structure that is not conducive to promoting high standards. Key functions, at an all-Wales level, are provided by an unsatisfactory organisational structure. First, there is the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, which was established by the Education Act 1993. It is responsible for curriculum development, the provision of materials and testing, and it is now also responsible for vocational qualifications. The previous Government decided not to give those functions to the body that existed at the time, the Welsh Joint Education Committee, because they did not want to do anything to strengthen local government. The WJEC was a local government body. It lobbied for the functions to be given to it and that was debated in Committee, but the Government did not want it.
We now have two bodies in Wales: one responsible for curriculum and assessment and the WJEC, which is the examining body. The WJEC is now a limited company owned by local authorities. I cannot see how it makes good sense to separate curriculum development and assessment from examination. Assessment and examination are part of the same process and there is a good argument for merging the two.

Mr. Ancram: Which amendment is the hon. Gentleman addressing?

Mr. Dafis: I am addressing amendment No. 52 and establishing the case for legislative or equivalent powers. I remember that you, Mr. Martin, were one of the Chairmen of the Committee that considered the matter, so you understand my point. I am considering whether it makes good sense to merge the two bodies. As a matter of interest, the establishment of an all-Wales body, which we might call the education council for Wales, is Plaid Cymru policy. Such a body would have strong local government representation.

Mr. Rogers: Like the WJEC.

Mr. Dafis: Indeed, it would be a body not unlike the WJEC, but it would have the functions of the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, and would have to be established by statute in primary legislation. It would also have representations from those in higher and further education.
The assembly will have powers in relation to the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, which is a body from which powers can be taken or to which

powers may be added. Under schedule 2, the authority could be abolished. However, I do not think that the assembly could transfer such powers to the WJECI— would like to be enlightened on this—or, better, revamp it to create an integrated body responsible for curriculum, examination and testing. A further possibility would be to bring in the inspectorate, which is ensconced inside the Welsh Office. We would then have an integrated body for quality control. It seems to me that that would be a very useful instrument in raising education standards in Wales.
It is worth considering local government and its responsibilities in relation to schools. The previous Government exercised a pincer movement on local government which weakened its position and its ability to deliver services to schools. First, they introduced local management of schools. I had no objection in principle to LMS, but the way in which it was done had an effect on local government. Following LMS, the Conservative Government reorganised local government and created small counties and small local education authorities in Wales. The evidence suggests that those small bodies lack the ability to deliver the support services that schools and teachers need to respond to the demands and pressures on them to raise standards.
Small local education authorities do not have the benefit of economies of scale. Some of them are setting up ad hoc co-operation with each other to provide support services. There is a strong case for delivering support services through a national organisation. When I say national, I mean an all-Wales organisation. I think that the word "national" will increasingly be used in Wales to apply to Wales rather than to the whole of the United Kingdom. Some people might disagree with the idea of creating an all-Wales body to be responsible for delivering services, such as in-service training, to schools. Some people might see it as a centralising process, but I do not see it that way.
The important issue for us tonight is whether, if it wished to do so, the National Assembly for Wales would have the power to bring about changes and create structures and systems that are appropriate, suitable and acceptable to Wales in order to raise standards. Most of the reforms of the past 18 years were not ideologically acceptable in Wales. I believe that the answer to my question is no because I do not believe that the assembly would be empowered in that way. It would find itself constrained. It would have to work, manoeuvre and manipulate the situation within severe constraints. It would find itself hobbled like a gipsy's horse in an area crucial for the advancement of Wales as a successful country, which is the enterprise that we are all about.
I applied to sit on the Standing Committee which is considering the School Standards and Framework Bill, but I was not accepted. As a result, there is no Member of Parliament from Wales on that Committee, apart from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). There ought to be a Back-Bench Member from Wales on the Committee, but that is by the way. Clause 93 of the School Standards and Framework Bill contains provisions to encourage selection on the basis of ability or, as it calls it, aptitude in a number of subjects. It is not clear to me that Wales would not be subject to the provisions of that Bill. I believe that the selection process would apply to Wales.
It is true that the School Standards and Framework Bill contains a disclaimer in clause 118(6), where it says:
Any order or regulations under this Act may make different provision in relation to England and Wales respectively.
I am not sure what the word "respectively" is doing there. As I understand it, that clause does not make provision for Wales not to be subject to the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Bill. I should like an answer to my question. How will the Welsh assembly be empowered to do what, for practical reasons, it might feel it necessary to do?
The assembly's lack of legislative power will certainly be a cause of frustration and dissatisfaction to Members of the Assembly. Conservative Members would be delighted at that; it is what they hope for. They hope to see dissatisfaction and frustration in the assembly. If we want to prevent that and, if as I presume is inevitable, the Government do not give the assembly primary legislative powers, some other mechanism must be created. Plaid Cymru Members have suggested this fast-track mechanism. The Secretary of State spoke cautiously and promisingly on this important issue.
The amendment should be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber because it accepts that primary legislative powers should remain at Westminster. That is not where I come from, and the Secretary of State understands that; I do not have to explain the point. The amendment respects the conviction of people in this place that this is where primary legislation ought to be made. It does not seem to me unreasonable that the National Assembly for Wales should have the serious power to tell the House of Commons that it wishes primary legislation to be enacted in a particular way, and that the House of Commons should respond positively. That is a practical way ahead which would enable the assembly to do its work effectively and set in place the type of measures that we all want in order to make it a success.

Mr. Rowlands: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks closely. He has used as an illustration a Bill that is before the House and that will spawn orders even after the assembly has been established. What is his reading of the provisions in the Government of Wales Bill with regard to orders? How does he see it working with the orders that might come out of the School Standards and Framework Bill?

Mr. Dafis: I shall not hold a seminar on the contents of that Bill except to say that, in some clauses, the Secretary of State is given power to bring orders before the House. In those circumstances, the assembly could pursue its own priorities and not implement them as they are likely to be implemented in England. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told me clearly that any discretion that the Welsh assembly would have—he said that it would have considerable discretion—would be subject to the principles set out in the Bill.
The principles in the School Standards and Framework Bill are not all that different from the principles of the previous Government. The Bill is about selection and competition. However, in some clauses it is clear that the provisions of the Bill would not have to apply to Wales. The clauses on education action zones are one example. I

do not believe that the Secretary of State for Wales would have the ability to opt out of selection, and schools in Wales would be empowered to set about the process—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is dwelling on selection in education for far too long. We are talking about amendments on legislative powers. Education could be one of those powers, but to dwell on education is to stray away from the amendment before us.

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin. You were one of my early instructors in the niceties of this place, and I certainly bend to your judgment. I have almost finished. I think that the point has been made.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The amendments cover a variety of subjects, and I should first like to consider whether the introduction of tax-varying powers would make sense or not. In the light of the referendum result, there is no question of supporting their introduction, because that referendum was fought on Government proposals that excluded such powers. Their subsequent introduction would be such a departure in principle from what was put before the people of Wales at that referendum that it would invalidate the legislation, because it would invalidate that very referendum. There is no question about that.
I should also like to refer briefly to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). My right hon. Friend was quite right to say that there is a dissonance between the Welsh and English versions of the title of the assembly, which is unacceptable. Either the Welsh should read "Cynulliad Cenedlaethol dros Gymru" or the English should read, "National Assembly of Wales". Perhaps it does not matter which version is used, but there should not be a difference between the Welsh and English versions. Someone has got something wrong, and we need to change either the Welsh or the English. That difference must be overcome.
I must admit that my instinct is to support the amendment proposed by my two distinguished Back-Bench colleagues. I do not believe that it makes a huge amount of difference, but I hope that the Government will show some flexibility on the matter.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am rather amused to hear my hon. Friend's reference to a dissonance between the English and Welsh language versions. I understand that the proposition that the assembly should be called the National Assembly for Wales was first put forward in the other place by the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, and that that suggestion commanded all-party support. There is a pretty strong body of support for that option.

Mr. Morgan: Pretty strong is as pretty strong does, but that is not a sufficient reason for a distinction between the Welsh and English versions. That needs to be sorted out. It is not a sufficient reason to deny the House the right to differ from someone even as distinguished as the former hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Dafydd


Elis-Thomas. We should make our own minds up about it, and if we differ from a distinguished Member of the House of Lords and the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, so be it.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not suggesting that that individual, as chairman of the Welsh Language Board, approved the translation into the Welsh, which is incorrect—it is more likely that an error has been made in the English version.

Mr. Davies: I am not suggesting that. I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. I suggest that the other place will want to reflect on its original debate and on the debate in the House about the dissonance between the English and Welsh language versions and whether that is acceptable.

Mr. Morgan: Let me put it more frankly, so that the other place can reflect upon it more honestly—the chairman of the Welsh Language Board was talking rubbish.
It is clear that the introduction of tax-varying powers is a no-no following the referendum. That would defraud the people of Wales, and render the entire referendum campaign nonsense. Those of us who slogged our guts out during that campaign would not like to think that we would have to do it all again to seek approval for the assembly to have tax-varying powers. That option is absolutely out for all of us.
The question of law-making powers is slightly different, because of the possibility that the Bill offers a law-making element in a Henry VIII clause which is equivalent to primary legislative powers. That possibility has accounted for the bulk of our discussions since 3.40 pm. I believe that the Secretary of State has referred to that possibility in some of his interventions. We are referring to the power either to block or to initiate legislation.
A lengthy discussion has been held between my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Members about whether the power to block legislation is contained in the Bill. That power could be construed as equivalent to being able to block primary legislation from the House. The Secretary of State placed more emphasis on the ability to be creative and the power of the assembly to initiate the equivalent of primary legislative powers through a Henry VIII clause.
I am not a parliamentary draftsman, so it is difficult for me to define exactly where that power appears in the Bill. Somewhere between clauses 29 and 41 there appears to be an opening provided by such a Henry VIII clause. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appears to have made it clear in his interventions that such a possibility exists. Although that power would be under a secondary legislative one, in certain minor areas it would be equivalent to primary legislative powers. In the end, it does not matter whether that power is described as primary or secondary: it is the power itself that is of interest to people.
It seems that it is my right hon. Friend's intention that the assembly should have the power to initiate legislation. Whether the assembly would have the power to block

adverse legislation which is passed by a Government of a political party of a different colour from that representing the majority in the Welsh assembly needs to be clarified, either when a Minister responds to the debate or at a later stage in our deliberations. It would be preferable if one of my right hon. Friend's colleagues sought to answer that question in the response to the debate.
We are satisfied that it is my right hon. Friend's intention that the assembly should have the power to initiate. That important power to an extent answers some of the objections and whinges expressed by the president of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who moved amendment No. 52. We would be grateful for some further elucidation of the possible powers to block legislation and where that authority rests in the Bill. There has been a great deal of talk about that this afternoon.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the name of the proposed Parliament. What does one call a legislature, debating chamber or body? There is a case for allowing the assembly to make its own choice. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who said that it will be known as the Welsh assembly. He is trying to predict the future, which is difficult, but the principle behind his remarks is right.
We should try to fit in with what the people of Wales call that Parliament. We should not be too prescriptive. If we offered the Welsh assembly the freedom to decide its name, would it be terribly pompous and try to inflate its importance, or it would follow what the man or woman in the street called it anyway?
The problem with the name "Welsh assembly" and the objection to it which arose during the referendum campaign is that the word "Welsh" has two meanings. One means the Welsh language, and the other that it is of Wales. It is one of those things that we cannot get away from.
One of the main purposes of changing from the name Welsh assembly to National Assembly either of or for Wales is to clear up the confusion that exists in some people's minds. They ask whether, if one calls it the Welsh assembly, that means that one must be able to speak Welsh to take part in its proceedings. It is a big problem, which we met during the referendum. I believe that the alternative title of National Assembly gets around it, although I prefer National Assembly of Wales to National Assembly for Wales.
Is there a further advantage in trying to give the assembly a bit of local colour by encouraging the use of the word senedd? The hon. Member for Ribble Valley is incorrect to say that that word is used only as a direct translation of the Anglo-French word Parliament. I must tell him that, until the first world war, the word senedd was not used very much, and the Welsh word for Parliament was Parlmant, with an "a" not an "e" and without anything between the "1" and "m". It was the Welsh version of the Norman French instead of the English version of Norman French. The use of the word senedd started to gain a grip only after the first world war.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has already been told, quite correctly, by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) that "senedd" is a translation of senatus. It may have a bit of the word "synod" in it as well. It is confusing for us all, but if it was a direct translation from


senatus I am told that it should be spelt senawd, not senedd. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ceredigion can confirm that, but perhaps it comes from the Greek word "synod", which has an entirely different meaning, but which, fortunately, tends to mean the same kind of thing—a debating body.
It is all very confusing, but the names of Parliaments are always confusing. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is wrong. The BBC always refers to the Japanese Diet, but that word is unknown in Japan. The Japanese word for its Parliament is Kokkai. The BBC refers to it as the Diet perhaps because it thinks that the Japanese word is open to misinterpretation. What does Diet mean? It means a body that meets for one day.
The lesson we must learn is that there is never an accurate translation of the names for assemblies, Parliaments, councils, diets, folketings, sejms, majlises, or any word for Parliament. Any name must develop in a way that is natural and meets with the approval of the people whom that body is trying to serve. That is the important point—the name should evolve naturally, but we are trying to predict what will evolve naturally in Wales.
Will the people of Wales prefer to use a Welsh-language but easy-to-pronounce term like "senedd", or will they prefer a word like "assembly"? Do they like the Welsh word "cynulliad"? I do not think they do: the word cynulliad is rather complicated, as if one had chewed a dictionary for breakfast. Many people do not like it, and will probably never use it, so we need a simpler Welsh version. 
That is the main reason for looking for something else. "Cymanfa" has associations with singing in chapel, but it is probably a better translation of assembly than cynulliad. I admit that I have never liked the word cynulliad; I do not think the word trips happily off the tongue even of Welsh speakers, let alone those who are learning Welsh or who have no Welsh at all. We must try to evolve words—possibly leaving the matter to the assembly itself—which trip naturally off the tongue of the people of Wales and which indicate the affection and respect in which the body is held by the people of Wales.
The question whether we should aim at a full primary legislative body is ruled out by the terms of the referendum, but—provided the Secretary of State confirms that there is a clear intent to have a Henry VIII power in the legislation—there is nothing to stop the assembly reforming public bodies in Wales and dealing with other matters. The House is always bored when dealing with such matters—we remember the farcical proceedings over the reform of Welsh local government and the Welsh Language Act 1993—and, in future, Parliament will generally expect the Welsh assembly to deal with them.
In future, if legislation of a primary, secondary or hybrid nature is required, hon. Members here would prefer not to slog away until 10 pm on matters that should be dealt with by the Welsh assembly. That is the way the two bodies will come to work together naturally. I do not see any problem with allowing a matter that was in the White Paper and therefore was there when the people of Wales voted in the referendum to be expanded, but we cannot introduce something completely new, such as tax-varying powers, which were clearly excluded when the proposition was put to the people of Wales.
We must also be aware that, if the Welsh assembly is to participate in certain supranational bodies, such as the council of the isles mooted by the Government—depending on whether that idea comes off as part of the Northern Ireland peace process, what the council can do and the right to participate being granted—it may be that we will need to consider whether any adaptation of the legislative powers referred to in the Bill is necessary in order to permit the Welsh assembly to play the part intended for it in that council.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I have been listening carefully to the debate on this group of amendments, especially the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the issue of legislative powers. Despite his eloquence and the powerful case he put forward, I suspect from his interventions that the Secretary of State is unlikely to concede the amendment. However, another possibility is open to the Secretary of State, which has been put to him on more than one occasion.
In the absence of legislative powers being transferred to the national assembly, how will Westminster deal with a legislative framework to develop its powers in respect of secondary legislation? The Secretary of State has said that the assembly will need to find a dynamic relationship with Westminster. There will always be such a dynamic relationship, but I suspect that it will work best when the Welsh assembly is governed by a party that is largely in sympathy with the party governing in Westminster. The right hon. Gentleman has to accept that his case tends to fall down when the Government in Westminster want to introduce legislation that is diametrically opposed to what the settled will of the Welsh people, through the Welsh assembly, wants to achieve.
We have to look at circumstances in which that might happen. The Secretary of State has said that, in future, the Conservatives might have a majority in Britain that would enable them to govern in Westminster. I am not interested in the likelihood that, in the first term of a Welsh assembly, there will be a Labour Government and an assembly in Cardiff that is sympathetic to that Government; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to address the situation in which there is a Conservative Administration here in Westminster and a non-Conservative Administration in Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: The principle has to be the same, regardless of the nature and political colour of the Government here in Westminster. The hon. Gentleman should not strain too much against the prospect of improvements in the Conservative party. It is a serious point that the Conservative party is currently going through an ideological debate and will eventually emerge as a party that recognises that power is best devolved. It was interesting to hear the Conservative spokesman arguing strongly that the assembly would provide a powerful voice in Europe and that we should put on the face of the Bill the assembly's representative powers in respect of Europe. If that sort of progressive thinking develops, who knows what sort of Conservative Government we might have in 10 or 15 years' time?

Mr. Jones: That is an interesting point and it has merit, because the logical outcome of the Conservatives' attacks


on the Bill is that they would either abolish the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament, or opt for the federalist solution. Nevertheless, the great danger facing the Welsh assembly is that it might find that it wants to put something right in a way that requires legislation, but is unable to act quickly because of the Westminster logjam.
Let me give the Secretary of State two brief examples. He will know that, occasionally, Bills come to the House simply to raise the borrowing powers of the Welsh Development Agency, because that requires primary legislation. We can assume that that will be necessary in future, and, although such legislation passes through the House quite quickly, a time and a slot have to be found in the Westminster timetable. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman another example.

Mr. Davies: Before he does, the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that the previous Conservative Government allowed for those increases to be dealt with in future through secondary legislation.

Mr. Jones: That was a change.
Let me put another point to the Secretary of State. He will know that we have had some interesting discussions in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on the issue of conterminosity. The Welsh assembly will be given powers to change the boundaries of quangos, but not of local authorities. There is a powerful argument in favour of conterminosity—in other words, that services should be developed within boundaries shared by quangos and local authorities. Major legislation might not be needed for that to happen—a small Bill might suffice.
If we had a fast-track procedure—which might not require amendments to the Bill, but only changes in the Orders of the House—and the Welsh assembly made it clear to Westminster that it wanted a small legislative change to be made, all that would be needed would be for the Bill making that change to go through a revamped Welsh Grand Committee. It would not tie up the House in a lengthy procedure. It could adopt an easy procedure—the Welsh Grand Committee. I see no reason why that could not be considered.

Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of conterminosity, will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for asking whether he will be a conterminous Member of Parliament?

Mr. Jones: I shall not enter that debate; I simply wish to put a serious point to the hon. Gentleman.
In north Wales, many local authorities deliver social services, and a trust delivers community care. When Gwynedd health authority and county council were in existence, community services could be developed on the basis of geographical area. That possibility has been lost as a result of the changes in local government and how the health service has developed.
There may be other ways of proceeding, but the Welsh assembly will be unable to follow that course, because, while it can change the boundaries of the quangos, it cannot change the boundaries of local authorities. Therefore, although the Government could consider using

other procedures, a fast-track procedure would assist the Welsh assembly in implementing its policies, provided that a major piece of legislation is not involved.
It is generally accepted that one of the dangers for the Welsh assembly in its early years is that it might be frustrated from making simple changes—those that call not for major legislation but simply for minor amendments of the kind that I described. It would be frustrating for the Welsh assembly, in its first term, to find that the Westminster Parliament could not find time to implement Welsh legislation. A fast-track procedure would remove the intense frustration which Assembly Members may feel.

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman has argued that case before, and I have always listened carefully when he has done so. First, it is important to establish the assembly, and the assembly will have a heavy responsibility to prove itself. Secondly, what the hon. Gentleman argues for cannot be legislated for in the Bill, because it is for the Westminster Parliament to adopt its own procedures.
I have long argued that constitutional change is a process of evolution. The assembly must establish itself, and if circumstances arise in which relatively minor changes are needed, it will be a case of waiting for the relationship between the Welsh assembly and the Westminster Parliament to mature. The assembly must establish itself in such a way that the House feels comfortable about adopting new procedures to facilitate the assembly's wishes.

Mr. Jones: That was an extremely helpful intervention. The Secretary of State acknowledges the fact that circumstances could arise in which that procedure could be used. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that there is a strong case for that. I suggest that the Committee considers that that option will be available to the House. Now that we have it on the record that it is a matter for discussion, we should pursue it when the opportunity arises.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Clause 1 is the foundation clause for the Swansea assembly. I draw three conclusions from the debate so far. First, the Conservative party in Parliament has not come to terms with the result of the referendum. Its spokesman, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), used expressions such as out of the frying pan and into the fire. His speech was negative and carping—and some distance away from what I hear from Conservative party members in Wales.
Secondly, all the interesting wordplays that we have heard, adding to or subtracting from the definitions in the Bill, tell us something about those who suggest them. They are trying to reconstruct the assembly as they would like it—with more legislative powers, with tax-raising powers or diminished powers—not as it was broadly endorsed by the people of Wales and in the White Paper.
Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) put their fingers on a key point relating to the interface between this Parliament and the proposed assembly. Of course there are likely to be frustrations, because politicians in the assembly will


have a vested interest in pushing the boundaries further, while some hon. Members in this Parliament will take a minimalist view.
However, the Secretary of State should answer this simple question: are there circumstances in which the assembly can refuse to implement an order that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom? If so, in which circumstances will that be possible? I hope that he will answer not just in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney but will tell all hon. Members. How do we deal with the serious problem described by the hon. Member for Ynys Mon and others: how to implement speedily relatively minor matters relating to the assembly on which everyone agrees and which do not detract from the sovereignty of this Parliament? I invite interested hon. Members to make a submission, perhaps in the light of experience of the workings of the assembly, to the Modernisation Committee. If it is a problem, I hope that it can be dealt with reasonably by people of good will on both sides.
Perhaps I may outline a few of the principles that the House should adopt. This is an evolutionary situation because we have no constitution and the Bill is not set in stone. No institution is static; institutions are dynamic and will progress. A big step has been taken: we are to have an assembly for, or of, Wales. It is therefore a matter of adapting. I believe that the European Parliament was first called the European Assembly. I have used the analogy of the Welsh Office before in the House. The Welsh Office was a pretty puny creature when it was first created; the fact that it now has much greater powers simply reflects the fact that all institutions are dynamic and evolve with the passage of time.
The second principle is that constraints are imposed on us by the referendum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) ably said, although the referendum showed an acceptance of the Government's proposals, it only just showed acceptance. The slim majority imposes certain constraints. For example, no one who wanted the assembly to have much greater powers would have voted against it. Hence one can conclude that, had the Government proposed greater powers—in terms of primary legislation or taxation for example—the people of Wales would not have accepted the assembly. That should impose a certain humility on us as we frame the legislation to establish the assembly.
The third principle concerns the constraints imposed by the nature of Wales. I shall not go into the divisions in Wales between the north and the south, and between those who use the Welsh language and those who do not. Happily, through wisdom, we have developed a consensus and we should do nothing to upset it.
The final principle is clear. Wherever possible we should trust the assembly people. We should not be too prescriptive. We should give them as much discretion as possible so that they can work out their own rules and procedures. We should not put a straitjacket on them, but trust them to make up their own rules.
6 pm
I shall briefly apply those broad principles to the amendments. The ability to make primary legislation would be against the spirit of the referendum and should not be adopted. I understand the argument about the word senedd, but language can be an explosive issue in Wales.

Happily, we now have a consensus. I pay tribute to the previous Government for the Welsh Language Act 1993, which drew the sting out of what might, in other circumstances, have been a highly divisive matter. The use of senedd may have sent out the wrong signal, whereas the term Welsh assembly gives the right consensual signal.
On whether it should be the National Assembly of Wales or for Wales, I do not understand the semantics. Although for Wales may sound a little patronising, it assumes a unitary government for the United Kingdom. The danger is that an assembly of Wales may imply that Wales is a single entity separate from the United Kingdom. That may or may not be the reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West mentioned the German precedent. I knew a German called Mr. von and zu Guttenburg; we used to say that he did not know whether he was coming or going. I hope that we do not have a messy compromise: I am happy with the present formulation.
I promised to be brief. I have explained the spirit in which I believe we should approach the amendments, given the constraints. We should proceed on a consensual basis and, above all, trust in the assembly so far as is possible. We should be ready to smooth the way if necessary by sensible amendments to our procedures in the House.

Mr. Dalyell: As the first, and possibly only, non-Welsh contributor from the Labour Benches, I feel like a guest who is expected to behave himself at the party. I want to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, when he intervened during the speech of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), he referred to a developing relationship; later, in another intervention, he referred to a dynamic relationship. Other hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom are deeply affected by the Bill. I am curious to know at what point there will be a stop to this developing relationship. The Secretary of State's remarks were very interesting and revealing and we are entitled to know what is in his mind.
Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to The Scotsman. As a Scot, I believe what The Scotsman says about births, marriages and deaths. I also believe The Scotsman when it comes to football scores. Beyond that, I tend to be sceptical. I am not jumping to the conclusion that The Scotsman has got it right. Day after day, we are regaled by the so-called iniquities of the Welsh referendum. Will the Secretary of State put on record his view of what The Scotsman has been up to, because it has written a heck of a lot about that? I am a simple seeker after truth.

Sir Raymond Powell: I shall be brief, unlike some people who say that they will be brief and then take 25 minutes when everyone is waiting to finish the debate at 6 o'clock.
I want to refer to amendment No. 52, because I would be appalled by the creation of a legislative assembly in Wales. I have made myself abundantly clear on that topic and my view accords with Labour party policy. As a supporter of Labour party policy on most issues, I resist Plaid Cymru's advocacy of a legislative assembly. There is no doubt in my mind that the nationalists want a legislative assembly in Wales: they have wanted to


achieve that in all the 35 years that I have been active in politics. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would say the same with regard to Scotland.
We will not have a legislative assembly in Wales: that was made abundantly clear in the White Paper. That is also what the people who voted in the referendum decided. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any of proposals in the first set of amendments were included in any way, shape or form in the White Paper?

Dr. John Marek: I agree that the Bill should be as close as we can get it to what the people of Wales voted for in the referendum. It may not be exactly what we want: all of us wanted something different. I should have liked parts of the Bill to be different, but I accept that any large measure of legislative powers for the Welsh assembly would be inappropriate. It is easy to say that, but it is not so easy to define the word "legislative". The Bill uses the word "legislation" but it is always preceded by the word "subordinate". The legislative powers of the Welsh assembly will be subordinate.
We can explore that a little further and try to define subordinate legislative powers. It is conceivable that, when the Welsh assembly is established, the House could pass an enabling Bill that left everything to be decided by order or by regulation. Technically, that would be subordinate legislation. However, it is easy to envisage a different Administration introducing not an enabling Bill but legislation in which everything is prescribed, thus making any subsequent orders or regulations completely unnecessary. In that case, the Welsh assembly would have no powers, because it could not even block an order or regulation. What is primary legislation in one scenario is subordinate legislation in another.
I would not say that there is confusion, but a wide interpretation is available of what constitutes legislation—whether it is subordinate or primary. I hope that we will set up a Welsh assembly and that the Bill will complete its Committee stage successfully, but, if that is to happen, we must adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson): we must not put the assembly in a straitjacket.
One of the amendments says that there should be a National Assembly of Wales rather than a National Assembly for Wales. Let us suppose that, having come into existence, the assembly wanted to call itself the National Assembly of Wales, perhaps after consultation in Wales. I understand that, simply because the name would be in the primary legislation that we would be passing here, it could not be changed. That cannot, or should not, be the House's intention. The House cannot think it right for decisions that it would probably wish to devolve to the Welsh body not to be devolved because of what was in primary legislation—the Government of Wales Bill.
Let us not put the Welsh assembly in a straitjacket. Let us be a little generous. It must be possible to design a way of retaining the safeguards for the House: the Scotland Bill may show us how that can be done. Let us, however, allow the Welsh assembly some latitude in regard to matters that, according to any sensible person, it ought to be able to debate and decide on. Let us not

have laws and rules that remind us of the well-known phrase about the guidance of wise people and the obedience of fools, preventing the Welsh assembly from carrying out its proposals as it would wish to do.
How are we to arrange that? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to consider the matter. I do not expect instant answers, but my right hon. Friend has heard pleas from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and, probably, from a number of other hon. Members, including me. There must be safeguards preventing the Welsh assembly from assuming legislative powers beyond those that the Welsh people expected when they voted in the referendum on 18 September, but there are other legislative powers that I think it would be sensible to allow. We should at least allow the possibility.
Let me give an example that is, or was, dear to the Secretary of State's heart. I refer to the Cardiff bay barrage. Any reasonable argument would suggest that the matter should have been decided by people in Wales, preferably people in south Wales. It certainly should not have been decided by the House of Commons. The Secretary of State will remember very well our debate at 3 am, or 4 am, when, by the force of sheer argument, we defeated the proposals that had been submitted to the House—only for English Members representing constituencies well away from Cardiff to force through legislation that most Welsh Members did not want.
I hope that legislation such as that would be considered appropriate for the Welsh assembly to pass. Cannot a form of words be incorporated in the Bill to allow such sensible measures to be debated and decided on in the assembly?

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has drawn together many of the strands that have arisen in the debate. Surely what we need is an order-making facility in Westminster, allowing the National Assembly of—or for—Wales to take on a legislative role for a specific purpose. If that were provided, there would be a longstop here with regard to the functions that could be transferred, but the assembly would be able to get on with the job rather than having to wait for an inordinate time in the queue for legislation here.

Dr. Marek: I do not dissent from a word of that. The right hon. Gentleman puts it very well.

Mr. Ron Davies: I must put one point on the record, because I do not want the impression to be gained that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will gain the success for which he is arguing. I refer him to our earlier debate with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). What we must do now is get the assembly established.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me to explain what I meant about a developing relationship. The assembly will have to establish itself. There will be concordats between it and this place; there will be working relationships between it and the Westminster Government. It is in the light of the way in which the assembly operates, and in the light of needs that will be demonstrated in the future, that this place will have to look to its own procedures—but that is a matter for Parliament, not a matter for the assembly. It is for the assembly to make recommendations, but not to decide.

Dr. Marek: Clearly the position will develop, so I will not go into it now; but the argument stands that we should not let the precise wording of the primary legislation that we are passing here now prevent any future relationship from developing.
I will not say too much, because I know that hon. Members want to proceed to the next debate. Let me say, however, that the Scottish way of doing things was easier, and more all-embracing, simply because a different referendum was held in Scotland. As a result of the proposals for us in Wales, rather than being given permissive powers, we have been given virtually all the Bill's proposals in a straitjacket. There is a churlish acceptance that certain functions must be devolved, and it has been promised that certain powers will be handed over by the Secretary of State for Wales; but the powers are circumscribed as much as possible, wherever possible. The problem lies with the principle that guided the drafting of the Bill. I ask the Secretary of State to consider this proposition. If the assembly is to be constrained by a tight corset preventing it from exercising certain powers, there will be precious little room for beneficial development of its role.

Mr. Öpik: Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding that a consensus seems to be developing—that we are not closing the door on the evolution of a devolved assembly with law-making and tax-varying powers?

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman must not take me too far along that road. It is a road that I would be prepared to travel, but I am bound by a self-denying ordinance. The Welsh people voted for a particular model of assembly, and I think that, by and large, we should deliver what they voted for. I do not think that we need any development of law-making powers.
Is this to be an assembly for Wales, or an assembly of Wales? That ought to be something for the Welsh assembly to decide, but under the present rules it will not be able to do so. We shall have to do it here, which shows something of the problem involved in drafting devolution legislation as it has been drafted in the Bill.
Let me suggest to the Secretary of State that, on this minor matter, he should consult the other parties. He will probably resist the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). If it were pressed to a vote, I would be tempted to vote for it, but I would fear for my safety from the Government if I voted against them again too soon after 10 December—or 11 December, or whenever it was. I think that we can get together and see whether there is general agreement in favour of a change. If the Liberal Democrats, the Welsh nationalists and the Conservatives—if they have any interest in these matters; I do not know whether they do—think that it would be better for us to have a National Assembly of Wales, why do we not have such an assembly? It does not matter. It is a trivial point.
The important point is that the assembly will not be able to decide its name. The Government need to think about whether they can loosen the tight straitjacket, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East said, so that the Welsh assembly has a little legislative freedom.

Ms Julie Morgan: I am pleased to be called to speak. I will be brief because I am aware that

we have been at this debate for three hours, but it is important that a woman from Wales should speak to the proposals.
When we were knocking on doors during the referendum campaign, two main points came over from people in Cardiff. One was that they were concerned that Welsh speakers would dominate the assembly. We addressed that issue a little when we discussed the name. The other point was that the assembly was about jobs for the boys. We have heard much from all the boys tonight, but I hope that, when we discuss the clauses on election methods, we will be able to talk more about that aspect.
Most of the points that I wanted to make have been covered. Most of the amendments have to be resisted because, in the referendum, we campaigned on the fact that there were to be no tax-raising powers and no primary legislative powers. I said in many places that that was what we were campaigning for and we are bound to keep to the spirit of that policy.
We should not play down the powers that are in the White Paper, the Bill and the secondary legislation. There is tremendous scope there for building Wales and for making a truly representative and strong assembly. The Bill presents us with a tremendous opportunity.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: I have sat for around three hours listening with great interest to the debate, which covers primary legislative powers, tax-varying powers and dissatisfaction with the intended name of the assembly. However, we are dealing not with details but with fundamental and basic principles here. The basic principle outlined in paragraph 1.7 of the White Paper is:
The Assembly will take over the responsibilities that the Secretary of State exercises in Wales.
Our view on that should be coloured by the referendum. In that referendum, the people of Wales did not vote for further legislative powers, tax-varying powers or an assembly by another name.
There were genuine fears in Wales at the time that tax-varying powers could lead to increases in taxation. Those of us who campaigned in Wales—at least Labour and some Opposition Members—recognised that countering those fears effectively led to a 30 per cent. increase in the yes vote over that in 1979, culminating in the decision to go ahead with the assembly. People have therefore already voted to establish that principle. We are governed by the widest possible democratic remit within Wales—to consult and to give every person in Wales an opportunity to take part in that democratic process.
Those are the promises that we have made as a Government to the Welsh people. It is vital that we keep our promises. Our colleagues on both the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Benches joined us in supporting the principles in the White Paper proposals for a Welsh assembly and for a more democratic legislative framework in Wales that would restore faith in democracy there. The referendum turnout reflects the feeling of the people of Wales that their voices are not being heard any more. Any diversion from the basic principles outlined in the White Paper would be a total denial of the democratic process.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): We have had a wide-ranging


and interesting debate on the first group of amendments. To some extent, some of the amendments concern what might be regarded by the Welsh public as a minor issue—the specific name of the assembly—but they have given us an opportunity to have a thorough canter over all the ground that we argued over during the referendum campaign and while the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill was going through the House.
As nearly every Labour Member has said, there is the issue of honouring the White Paper as set out during the referendum campaign. The majority was not huge, but it was clear. The count was undertaken by counting officers throughout Wales, who did their jobs effectively within the law. For five months, no one made an observation just to create trouble.
Let us be clear about the matter. We cannot accept amendment No. 52. The word "legislative" introduced at this point would be misleading because, in the broad range of things, the assembly will not have primary legislative powers. It will have some specific powers arising from clause 29 in particular and there will be an opportunity to debate the extent of that clause later. The Scottish Parliament is called a Parliament because it does have those legislative powers. In Wales, we have an assembly because it does not have primary powers, except in specific areas.
That has given rise to a debate about how some of the subordinate powers—the secondary powers—might be dealt with by an assembly in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made the position clear in his usual straightforward and forthright way—in some ways, it is a straightforward point, but it is not a simple point because the way in which the secondary powers work will depend on the way in which they are framed in any Act of Parliament.
I throw in one example going back to the heady days of 1988, when I first came into the House and sat on the first of many Committees that considered education Bills—on that occasion, the Bill that became the Education Reform Act 1988. That provides for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Wales to create city technology colleges. For whatever reason, that power was never exercised in Wales; the power lay with the Secretary of State for Wales. If the assembly had been in charge, it probably would not have exercised that power either, so we must examine existing legislation and even Bills that are going through the House to determine how the assembly will be able to use its secondary powers.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) mentioned the School Standards and Framework Bill, which is going through the House, and some of its ramifications. We must consider exactly what powers are conferred on the Secretary of State. For example, I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that the Secretary of State will have powers in relation to admissions, which will deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Rogers: Is my hon. Friend saying—or shall we leave discussion of the issue until we debate clauses 41 and 42—that the assembly will have powers to introduce secondary legislation only if such powers are

included in the primary legislation passed in Westminster, and that the assembly will not otherwise have the power to initiate secondary legislation?

Mr. Griffiths: The assembly will have all the powers vested in it by the draft transfer order that was published yesterday. My hon. Friend will undoubtedly have seen just how extensive those powers will be. The assembly will be able to initiate secondary legislation only when it has been given the power to do so. It will not be able to conjure legislation from the air and call it secondary legislation. The power will be specific.
As I said, clause 29 will provide the assembly with some primary powers, but they will apply only in very specific circumstances, which we can tease out when we debate the relevant clauses.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) have all raised procedural points on the legislative powers. I hope that they will examine the draft transfer order in some detail, and join the debate on the relevant clauses with all the knowledge that will be at their disposal.

Sir Raymond Powell: The Minister mentioned the powers that the House will give to the Welsh assembly. Will he explain what will be left for Members of Parliament to deal with after all those issues have been assigned to the Welsh assembly?

Mr. Griffiths: There is a straight and easy answer to that question: all primary legislation will still be considered by the House. My hon. Friend will have every opportunity to sit on Committees considering health, education and industry Bills, all of which will have an impact on Wales. The job of hon. Members at Westminster will be to ensure that Wales's interests are best served.

Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) implied that the assembly would have the power to block legislation in Wales. Will that be possible?

Mr. Griffiths: It depends on how one uses the word "block". Some people might regard as blocking, for example, situations in which the Secretary of State has power to initiate action under secondary legislation and decides not to do so. The ability to block will depend on the nature of the orders and on whether they have to be introduced by a certain date. For example, some people might say that, in the past nine years, the Welsh Office has blocked the creation of city technology colleges.

Mr. Dafis: Is the Minister saying that the assembly of Wales will be able to block measures only if the Westminster Parliament is willing for it to do so?

Mr. Griffiths: If in legislation the Westminster Parliament provides a discretion for the Secretary of State


of Wales and for the assembly in Wales, they will be able to decide whether to use that power, as Secretaries of State for Wales have done in the example that I cited.

Dr. Marek: Based on my time in the House debating Bills that provide for orders and regulations, one aspect of this Bill worries me, and I wonder whether the Minister will be able to help me. Many regulations and orders use the phrase "the Minister may". What is to stop a succeeding, unfriendly Administration saying that "the Minister shall"—removing all the permissive powers that Welsh Office Ministers currently exercise?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is making the point that legislation sometimes states "may" and sometimes states "shall", but gives some leeway about when that "shall" will be used. We shall have to consider exactly how the House deals with legislation, and the assembly will have power to operate under the secondary powers.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend accept that it might be worth while stating in each statute the implications for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly—just as we currently state the public expenditure implications of Bills?

Mr. Griffiths: That will be a matter for the House to decide at the appropriate time.
The House will have to decide on establishing a fast-track procedure or something like it, either within this legislation, if the House were minded to act so quickly, or at a later date—such as, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said, with the establishment of a council of the isles, as part of a solution to the Northern Ireland problem.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the beginning of his speech. He is telling the Committee that the Bill is not a settlement, but an unholy mess in which the assembly will have no idea, from one Act of Parliament to another, how much power will be devolved to it. Is that not so?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has already had an opportunity to study yesterday's draft transfer order. The very long list of powers that will be held by the assembly in Wales shows that there is absolutely no uncertainty over many powers. In future—through the Secretary of State, through hon. Members at Westminster and through representations in response to White Papers and Green Papers—the assembly will have an opportunity to participate from Wales in the Westminster legislative process. There is no question of there being an uncertain muddle. A dynamic and developing relationship is a positive part of the process and growth of government of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Öpik: Is not future strength based on the fact that the assembly's powers and authority can evolve according to the will of the people of Wales and according to what works in the relationship between Westminster and Cardiff or Swansea?

Mr. Griffiths: Although it is not formally written, one of the great strengths of the British constitution is that, as the issue of sovereignty has grown over the years, it has

responded to the demands of certain groups of people. Those in power who have responded to change have saved themselves, whereas those who have not—like poor old Charles I—have lost their head. It was the Conservatives' failure to respond to change that resulted in their severe truncation at the general election.

Mr. Rogers: I am still a little confused about the blocking power—it was the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, not the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who threw that cat among the pigeons. It has been said that certain Conservative diseases, which were desired by some odd people, might not have been inflicted on Wales if we had had a Labour assembly.
The poll tax is a graphic illustration. During the referendum campaign, we heard about a range of things that would not have happened to Wales had there been an assembly; we certainly would not have had the poll tax. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon said that an enlightened, Labour-controlled Welsh assembly would not have implemented that disease. I want to know whether a Labour assembly will have the power to stop such measures, as has been claimed.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely helpful point. The legislation allowed the Secretary of State to implement orders to introduce a scheme for the poll tax. Although the poll tax itself would have been introduced, had there been a Welsh assembly, there could have been differences in banding, there could have been more bands in Wales and there could have been different discretions. The poll tax could and would have been an entirely different animal.
The name of the assembly, which is addressed by amendments Nos. 10 and 142, should not detain us. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—and to a certain extent the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—have intimated, usage will determine what the assembly will be called in common parlance. For the purposes of the Bill, a great deal of discussion arose out of a proposition in another place by the chairman of the Welsh Language Board that received support from both sides of the House. We debated the matter at some length before deciding on the form included in the Bill.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Minister unintentionally misled the Committee a moment or two ago when he referred to banding in respect of the poll tax. There was no such banding. What did he have in mind?

Mr. Griffiths: I believe that the orders—and we can check them—included powers to introduce different ways in which to implement the poll tax. However, we shall return to the matter at another point in the debate.
As to whether the title should include "of" or "for", there is a national orchestra of Wales and a national museum of Wales, but there is a Sports Council for Wales. We felt that an assembly for Wales would produce a better feeling of inclusiveness, rather than giving the impression that it related to a particular group in Wales or only to people who had been born in Wales—I would be in a bit of trouble in that respect. Although we are not absolutely wedded to that title and we are prepared to discuss it later, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed so that we do not have to resist them altogether.
Although the word "senedd" may enter popular usage, we do not want to put it in the Bill as it may raise fears among some people. An interesting debate developed about whether the word originated from the Latin for senate or from the Greek for synod, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West pointed out. However, in modern English parlance, the word "senedd" is the equivalent of parliament, which is derived from the French word "parlement", but the French "parlement" was nothing like the modern National Assembly, which is the French equivalent of our Parliament.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but I am driven to do so by what the Minister has just said. Is he honestly saying that the word "senedd" would imply that everyone in the assembly spoke Welsh? Why should people worry about that name? Is not Tai Cymru doing roaring business? Is CADW not rather well known in Wales?

Mr. Griffiths: I was not saying that. Clearly, the assembly will be a bilingual institution. As it will be the National Assembly for Wales, if we put the word "senedd" in the Bill some people may think that we are being partial. We do not want to give that impression because we want to bring everyone with us.
I should add that we reject new clauses 3 and 4 as they go against the wishes of the people of Wales as expressed in the referendum.

Mr. Wigley: I thank hon. Members for taking part in this afternoon's extremely interesting debate. I shall address the nomenclature first as I can do so fairly rapidly. We do not support the Conservative amendment proposing the name "Welsh Assembly", although I readily agree that the term will be used colloquially. However, I accept the arguments of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that a body "of Wales" belongs to Wales, that a body "for Wales" sounds as though it belongs to someone else and that "of" would, therefore, be better than "for". I understand that Ministers will look again at the matter, so we shall not push it to a vote at this stage.
Obviously, we support the use of the word "senedd" as it reflects the nature of the institution in that it has law-making powers. We should like the assembly ultimately to have full law-making powers. I readily accept that the Bill does not provide full law-making powers. It was, however, interesting to hear the Minister's reply to the debate and the comment made by other hon. Members that the division between secondary legislation and primary legislation was not as clear cut as some people might think.
As the Minister said, the White Paper contained provisions for the assembly to have certain primary law-making powers. The Bill provides mechanisms in respect of those powers. The White Paper on which the people of Wales voted included changes of a primary legislative nature within the capability of the assembly.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made the interesting point that the extent of the powers of the assembly dealing with secondary legislation would be

determined largely by the nature of the primary legislation passed here. Therefore, there may be times when the assembly will require primary law-making powers to achieve what might otherwise have been achieved by secondary law-making powers had the primary laws been drawn up differently. There is a substantial overlap.
The main thrust of the debate came from the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and for Wrexham and from some of my hon. Friends who said that the issue was not set in stone for all time and that, in drawing up the provisions for the assembly in the Bill, we were providing for certain legislative functions—most of them secondary legislative functions and some of them specific primary legislative functions. They also said that the provisions need not necessarily be the formula for ever and a day, and that if the democratic wishes of the people of Wales, as expressed to the assembly, sought a change in that balance, it might be possible to facilitate that.
I accept that idea as a reasonable way forward, but it would be silly for the Bill not to include mechanisms to allow for at least some of those functions to be achieved without the House having to resort to primary legislation every time we needed a facility to change the name of the assembly, for example, or every time Members of the Assembly wanted a change in respect of other relatively small provisions.
We have heard that discretion is being provided by the House—it could be called a discretion of the House—in terms of blocking secondary legislation. The assembly will be able to say that it does not want to use orders that are allowed because they are not appropriate for Wales—in other words, that it does not want to adopt the secondary legislation applied to England. That is the nature of the assembly and of the powers of the Secretary of State. However, we do not have the positive discretion to allow the assembly to do things. The Bill may need a mechanism to enable an order to be passed in Westminster allowing primary changes on relatively small matters of the sort mentioned by several hon. Members, without the whole primary mechanism in Westminster having to be gone through again. Building such an order into the Bill would be of tremendous benefit, saving the House a lot of time, but leaving the ultimate decision to the House, because the order would have to be passed by Parliament before the powers could be transferred.
Given that that is where the argument lies and having heard the Secretary of State's acknowledgement that we are talking about an evolving assembly, we could well look at the issue again on Report or in another place. I hope that it will be possible to find a mechanism that avoids unnecessary work for this Chamber and avoids the confrontation that there might otherwise be between the assembly and this Chamber purely because of lack of time.
We have had a constructive debate on these powers. On the basis of that debate and the evolving nature that the Secretary of State has described, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) Notwithstanding the establishment of the Assembly, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Wales.'.
Having listened to the previous debate, I am even more confirmed in my view that the amendment is necessary. The leader of Plaid Cymru asserted his determination to ensure that the Bill is part of a slippery slope towards achieving an independent Wales. Many of the comments made during the previous debate raised serious doubts in my mind—and, I suspect in the mind of many of my hon. Friends—about the effective sovereignty of this House.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State asked why such an amendment would be necessary, saying that this House was sovereign anyway. We have heard suggestions tonight that the sovereignty of this House could be thwarted. I did not intervene on the Minister a few minutes ago because I felt that it was proper to raise the issue on this amendment. If the assembly could thwart the sovereignty of Parliament by refusing to implement a commencement order on legislation that the House had deliberately and consciously voted to apply to Wales—I am uncertain about that after what has been said—serious questions would be raised.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but if he is going to say that the House could revert to primary legislation in such a case and retrieve the commencement order to apply it from this House, he will raise serious questions about the whole project.

Mr. Davies: I am not going to say that. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is clear. The assembly can exercise only the discretion that the House gives it. A future Government may want to give the assembly discretion to implement, or not to implement, a measure through secondary legislation or to vary provision in Wales according to Welsh circumstances. The assembly will not be able to exercise any judgment outwith that given to it by the House.
I should like to make two other points briefly. There is no need to make it explicitly clear that sovereignty rests with the House, because it clearly does. Nothing that the assembly or any future Government do can undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.
There was an interesting debate on the previous amendment. The important point is that there is a body of opinion that wants to make the assembly work. The discussions that are taking place and the concept of developing relationships derive from the broad consensus that the assembly must be made to work. I hope that the Conservative party accepts that the project is on course. We are going to have an assembly and it is in the best interests of the House and of the people of Wales to have one that is soundly based and has a good working relationship with Parliament. That means that there will be developing changes.

Mr. Ancram: One other developing change is a galloping response to an amendment as it goes along. The

Secretary of State has responded to my points during my remarks rather than at the end. I do not know whether he will be responding to the debate—

Mr. Davies: No, it will be the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman will not because, with great respect, he has greater authority than his hon. Friend. However, I look forward to hearing the response.

Mr. Davies: I shall not allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that unwarranted slur on my hon. Friend, who speaks with the full authority of the Government. There is no question of his statements carrying any less weight than mine. There is no reason why I should have chosen to reply to the debate. I had no knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move the amendment. Had he had the courtesy to notify me that he wanted me to reply to the debate, I should have considered it, but he cannot assume that this is the most important debate just because it is on a Conservative amendment. I think that the amendment is the least worthy of all those that we are due to debate.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman is indulging in his usual tactics. He will find that, after four years in Northern Ireland, I am not as easy to bully as some of his Back-Bench colleagues. I shall certainly not be bullied by him. I know what he is up to. When he decided to sneak the Bill away into Committee upstairs, he was not prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to announce it himself. He was sitting in the Chamber at the end of the Second Reading debate and he got the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), to do it, perhaps because he foresaw that he might have to back down and did not want his own words thrown back in his face.
Let me return to the amendment. We have heard some doubts about what an assembly will be able to do to legislation passed by the House. I asked a question during the previous debate to which the Secretary of State has not responded—perhaps his hon. Friend will do so in due course. Parliament can decide whether a commencement order will be in new primary legislation to keep it out of the hands of the assembly or whether discretion will be given to the assembly. However, there is a lot of existing legislation with orders passed by the House on the understanding that, if the Secretary of State did not use the discretion given to him, he would have to answer to this sovereign House for not doing so. That is how the sovereignty of the House is exercised on that discretion. If an assembly is able to decide not to exercise such discretion, even though it was Parliament's intention that it should do so, there will be no come-back because there is no accountable relationship between the assembly and the House on that.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will leave something for his hon. Friend to say at the end. He appears to be responding as we go along.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has not put a lot on the table yet, so there will not be a lot for me to


leave to my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the scheme that we are proposing. The issue is not the assembly taking powers to itself. The assembly will have only those powers given to it by Parliament. During the passage of the Bill, Parliament will have the opportunity to delete clause 29 if it wants to withhold those powers from the assembly. We shall have a further opportunity when the transfer order, which I published yesterday, is put before us. The right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to look at all the Acts that will be affected. There will be no question of hiding that information from the public domain. There will be a full process of discussion, we shall publish the final draft order in the autumn and Parliament will have a final opportunity some time next year to approve it.
The powers will have been described, debated and approved by this House of Commons, and this Parliament will decide that those powers can be exercised by the assembly. If that is not the exercise of Parliament's sovereignty, I do not know what is.

7 pm

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for one thing; he may save me from having to table a question, because I had intended to ask him which of the Acts of Parliament referred to in the draft order still had commencement orders outstanding on them. Once we have the answer to that, we should then be aware of what discretion we should be passing to an assembly that will not have the accountability back to Parliament that is at present exercised by the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me that he will do that during the Committee stage, I shall not table the question—but if he cannot 1 shall, because I feel that that would force him to make the position clear.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought my amendment one of the least important. However, its real purpose is simple. Essentially, it is to establish the veracity of the claim made during the referendum campaign, that the measure is Unionist in intent, and is intended to strengthen the United Kingdom—I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will recollect those words having been used in relation both to Scotland and to Wales—not to detract from the sovereignty of this Parliament here at Westminster.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to persuade the Committee that the purpose of his amendment is declaratory rather than practical?

Mr. Ancram: It has to be declaratory because such an amendment, or such an assertion, describes an existing situation. As the Secretary of State rightly said on Second Reading, this Parliament can change that situation if it wants to. It would not be unusual or unprecedented to include such assertions. They are made where there is a question mark over whether what is being done is intended to diminish the strength and unity of the United Kingdom or intended, as was said during the referendum campaign, to strengthen it.
I said on Second Reading that there was within the body of United Kingdom statute a clear precedent—that of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, as amended in

1922. Section 75 of that Act is still outstanding and, with suitable changes, forms my amendment. Obviously, I have changed the words "Northern Ireland" to the word "Wales".
That provision is there, and is still on the statute book, because it served to give a reassurance that what was being done in the Government of Ireland Act, especially as it related to Northern Ireland, was not part of a slippery slope leading to a united Ireland but would retain the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament over all matters in Northern Ireland, and retain Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Morgan: I promise that this will be my last intervention. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not seek to compare the Government of Ireland Act with the Bill that we are debating, when the degree of devolution in that Act is 100 times greater. There is no comparison. There was a need to provide reassurance in respect of the Government of Ireland Act because that was similar in nature to the Act that set up the Dominion of Canada, which contained a colossal amount of devolution and reserved few matters to the United Kingdom Parliament. The purpose of such an Act might have created a clear political necessity, which is hardly justified by a measure such as that before us, in which there is only one hundredth as much devolution.

Mr. Ancram: The difficulty that I have with such an intervention is that it suggests that the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Morgan: indicated assent.

Mr. Ancram: If the sovereignty of this Parliament is complete, what is there to prevent the amendment from being accepted? If it is an assertion, as I have said it is, and if it is in line with what the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State believe to be the case anyway, what have they got against inserting it into the Bill? [Interruption.] They say that it is unnecessary.
However, if we turn to the Scotland Bill, concerning devolution north of the border, although we do not find that assertion—I should like to see it there, too, and will table an amendment accordingly—we do find another assertion, equally drawn from Northern Ireland legislation. In that case, the legislation is the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which asserts in another way, but extremely clearly, the supremacy of this Parliament over Scotland.
In clause 27 of the Scotland Bill, we read:
This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.
That provision is in the Northern Ireland legislation as well. One could equally well argue that it is unnecessary there too, because as it is clearly the case that this is a sovereign Parliament, obviously it can do that. So why is that assertion in the Scotland Bill?
It is there for the same reason that it is in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973—because the assertion was needed to reassure. If there is no concern in the mind of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that what is proposed for Wales might lead further down the road to the independence of Wales and the separation and


break-up of the United Kingdom, what has he against the amendment, which would provide belt and braces for the intended position?
The only possible reason for leaving such an assertion out is that one knows that, ultimately, it is likely to be disproved, or may have to be reduced in some way.

Mr. Ron Davies: How can it be disproved?

Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State has himself said that the Bill is not stable, because devolution is not an event but a process. He himself envisages things moving on, and if he puts his hand on his heart he cannot say that he is certain that we shall end up with the sovereignty of this Parliament still intact. That is why he will not put the assertion in the legislation.

Mr. Llwyd: I am curious to find out how many times the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, has used the word "otiose" in such proceedings. It is the proper legal definition, and it is parliamentary language, too. If something is unnecessary, it should not appear on the face of a Bill. That is pretty obvious.

Mr. Ancram: I do not believe that the assertion is unnecessary, but to those who say that it is, I say that I should prefer to see it on the face of the Bill. If there are those of us who think that it is required, and if it would not affect the position either way, I do not see the objection.
It is interesting that new clause 3, proposed by the Liberal Democrats, replicates the clause that I mentioned in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, because they, too, believe that there is a need for such an assertion. We are asking not for a statement that would change anything, but for the Government to give those of us who have always been nervous about the effect of devolution on the United Kingdom a reassurance that the United Kingdom will remain intact, as will the sovereignty of this Parliament.

Mr. Edward Gamier: I do not want to take my right hon. Friend's arguments out of order, but will he project forward to clause 30, which deals with the power to implement Community law—a delegated power that the Bill gives to the assembly? At present, he is arguing about the effect on this Parliament of internal devolution within the United Kingdom, but clause 30 provides an example of extra-territorial law being handed straight to the Welsh assembly, bypassing this Parliament. Does not that underline all the more emphatically the argument in favour of my right hon. Friend's amendment?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for making that point. He has found an example of a potential erosion of sovereignty on the face of the Bill. Again, it is important in that respect to have the assertion on the face of the Bill. We must start from the position that this Parliament is sovereign and will remain so, and that is all that the amendment says, so I find it surprising that we meet such resistance from the Government side.
I shall ask the Secretary of State one question. I am not a suspicious character, but at the back of his mind there may be some element of what I am about to suggest. I do not know whether, in three years' time, the right hon.

Gentleman will be a Member of the Welsh assembly or a Member of this Parliament, retaining his office of Secretary of State. I do believe, however, that those who see the assembly as their natural home will always argue for fewer restrictions on its potential for growth and for the maximum ability to undermine the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. By contrast, those who remain here will want this Parliament's sovereignty to be maintained.

Mr. Öpik: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a big difference of tone between our new clause and what he is proposing? His amendment has a rather belligerent turn of phrase suggesting a fear of any kind of delegated authority being granted to the Welsh assembly.

Mr. Ancram: I do not accept that; and I do accept that authority will be delegated to the Welsh assembly. This Parliament has the right to tell the Welsh assembly that, although it has delegated authority, the authority of this House and the sovereignty of Parliament will not be diminished.
It is clear to me from the previous debate that there is something of a muddle on the question of sovereignty. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have not answered the important points made by the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others. I believe that they still harbour doubts about the extent of the powers of the assembly and the effect of those powers on the sovereignty of this Parliament.
The Government's approach this evening has been ambivalent. There seems to be an element of schizophrenia: will the assembly be strong and powerful with sovereignty of its own, or will it always be subject to the sovereignty of the UK Parliament? It is because of that schizophrenia, ambivalence and muddle that the amendment is necessary. I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Öpik: Judging by its tone, this is something of a wrecking amendment. That is not to detract from what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has been saying, but words like "undiminished" give one the feeling that the Conservatives are worried about giving the assembly delegated powers that will enable it not to look over its shoulder to Westminster all the time.
Hence, we would be minded to oppose the amendment. It is also rather provocative; it implies that the Welsh assembly cannot be allowed to function without close scrutiny by Westminster. That goes dead against the idea of devolution.
It is all very well to talk about belt and braces; it is surely even safer not to put on trousers at all but to stay in the constitutional bed and not try to move decision making out from the centre to Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: May I, out of curiosity, ask the hon. Gentleman whether he hopes to be a member of the Welsh assembly or to remain here as a Member of the Westminster Parliament?

Mr. Öpik: I do not see the relevance of that question to the points that I have been making. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an Estonian in Parliament has far more to contribute than an Estonian in Swansea or


Cardiff. I can foresee no circumstances in which I would stand for the Welsh assembly. I hope that that unequivocal statement reassures the hon. Gentleman.
The Liberal Democrats feel that the amendment is not in the spirit of devolution or of what was voted for on 18 September. Perhaps it is all a matter of judgment; perhaps the words would not undermine the effectiveness of the assembly, but they send out the wrong message. Having accepted the principle of devolution, we must now trust the Welsh people to elect individuals who are capable of operating effectively and wisely on their behalf. We do not see the need for endless insurance policies just in case the assembly gets it wrong. Responsible people act responsibly. I like to think that the Welsh assembly will behave responsibly and constructively in relation to Westminster; and that, if there are problems, they can be resolved by discussion and negotiation—and then possibly by legislation. We must not tie the hands of the assembly before it has even been elected.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: A remarkable concession by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) rather suggested that the amendment has more to do with mischief making and raking over the coals of an argument that the Conservative party has long since lost than with anything constructive. It is, in the right hon. Gentleman's words, purely declaratory: it has no practical purpose. Why then introduce it? As a lawyer, he ought to know the definition of otiose. There can be no better example of an otiose amendment than this one, because it is unnecessary. It is a propaganda exercise designed to create fear about the assembly. We should be concerned to engender precisely the opposite emotion.
The purpose of the package of reforms leading to this measure is to strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom and to reform the relationship between its constituent parts. That is eminently sensible and reasonable. It is not an attack on the sovereignty of the UK; it is a way of strengthening that sovereignty and improving our parliamentary processes.

Mr. Peter Luff: Unlike Labour Members, I see this issue as important. If the amendment is purely declaratory—I do not believe it is; it also has a utilitarian purpose—then there are many precedents for that in law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) gave examples from similar constitutional legislation of the past. As I recall, the Family Law Act 1997 includes a similar provision at the beginning, declaring that the purpose of the Act is to reinforce family life. So the fact that an amendment is declaratory does not diminish its importance or invalidate its consideration by the Committee.
I found the Secretary of State's interventions in my right hon. Friend's opening remarks extremely difficult to follow. He says that he wants the assembly to work. I am reconciled to the idea that there will be an assembly, although I am not glad about it, and I share the Secretary of State's view. I am a former member of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, and I am concerned for the Principality. It is only just over the border from my county, and I want the people of Wales, if they are to have one at all, to have an assembly that works.
But if the assembly is to work as a secure part of the constitution of this kingdom, it must have not just the whole-hearted support of the Welsh people but more than the grudging acceptance of the English people. The latter need to be reassured that the assembly will work in their interests, too.
That is why I think the Secretary of State was profoundly misguided to describe the amendment as unworthy. It is a matter for incredulity that the amendment was not accepted on the nod. It does no harm, and it would provide a real reassurance to the people of England that their concerns will be taken into account in the process of devolving power to Wales.
I declare an interest—I shall soon get bored with hearing myself say this; I have said it in three debates in the House in the past week—in that Worcestershire stands to be disadvantaged by the Bill and by the Government's regional development agencies for England. We shall be caught between the Welsh powerhouse set up by part VI of the Bill, and the Birmingham-based RDA. That is why I know that my constituents are worried about the Bill's implications for them. Thus, a reassurance in the Bill to the effect that it will work for the benefit of the whole kingdom, and that the supremacy of this place will remain intact, would be of benefit to my constituency.
As an English Member, I would appreciate it if Welsh Members could see that perspective as they consider this matter. The amendment goes beyond being purely declaratory, and provides some practical safeguard for my constituents' interests and those of other hon. Members in England.
The Welsh people have not declared themselves that enthusiastically for this Bill and the assembly. There has been a grudging, half-hearted acceptance, and three quarters of them seem to be saying that they also value the United Kingdom. They want some reassurance that the supremacy of this Parliament will still be very real. I accept that "supremacy" is not the most attractive of words. Perhaps its connotations are not entirely happy, but it was right for my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes to draw on precedent in other legislation in drafting the amendment.
Why should the Government resist the amendment? Frankly, I do not understand it. They say—indeed, the Welsh nationalists have been saying this too—that the amendment is superfluous and unnecessary. I am deeply suspicious about the direction from which I am hearing that claim. Some people who are telling me that have clear agendas—which, to their credit, they do not conceal. Why are they saying that an amendment to the Bill that would reassert the primacy of this place in the consideration of United Kingdom matters is superfluous? That concerns me.
I see the amendment as an insurance policy for the people of England and, indeed, of Scotland in the relationship between the Welsh assembly and this Parliament. A devolved Parliament in Scotland will inevitably lead to pressure for independence for Scotland. I am as yet unclear whether the National Assembly for Wales will have a similar impact. I suspect that it will become an ineffectual talking shop, and that the


enthusiasm of the people of Wales will diminish. However, the amendment is a useful safeguard should the Welsh assembly take off in the direction I fear.

Mr. Öpik: What evils and catastrophes does the hon. Gentleman foresee, if the amendment is not accepted?

Mr. Luff: I do not want to detain the House long, and I am trying to draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I would point the hon. Gentleman to clause 23(6) on page 14, which states:
Any function exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to … a cross-border area, or … a committee, board or undertaker which carries on activities in, or with respect to, a cross-border area".
From my reading of the Bill, it seems to me that the assembly will be given powers over any cross-border area
which includes a part (but not the whole) of England"—
I am relieved to say—simply on the say-so of a Minister of the Crown, with no assurance that this place will have any say over the giving of those powers over important chunks of England.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that, as I come from Worcestershire, where we historically fought the Welsh for many years, we are a little more sensitive on that point, perhaps, than those in other parts of the United Kingdom. The amendment will provide a useful and practical safeguard against that sort of frank abuse of its power by the assembly.
I genuinely believe that this is a useful amendment, which will safeguard the supremacy of this place. People are becoming more aware of the dangers of the Bill for the rest of the United Kingdom, and I honestly hope that, if the amendment is only superfluous, as the Government seem to suggest, they will accept it and give me great peace of mind.

Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been a brief, but nevertheless interesting, debate, even if it only showed us the shortcomings of the Opposition's thinking and that of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
From the outset, I must make it clear that there is nothing in the Bill to imply that the establishment of a National Assembly for Wales would undermine the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. The powers are clear. We discussed the background to the amendments at some length on Second Reading. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman can remember that discussion well. We set down in detail our reasons why the official Opposition's concerns were, frankly, misplaced. That remains our position. Nothing has happened since that debate to change our minds about this amendment, which is unnecessary.

Mr. Ancram: Can the hon. Gentleman answer this question? If he thinks the amendment unnecessary in this Bill, why did the Secretary of State for Scotland decide that an assertion-of-supremacy clause was necessary in the Scotland Bill?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a good point, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will deal with it as I develop my argument. It is important—in fact, it is crucial to the whole of our consideration of the Bill.
First, we believe that the views of the official Opposition on this point are based on a faulty grasp of the British constitution and of the powers of the assembly as contained in the rest of the Bill. I should have thought that it was obvious that it is this Parliament that is debating the passage of the Bill and that will be able to amend or repeal it after it is enacted. I should have thought that proof enough of this Parliament's sovereignty.
Any guarantees that the House attempts to add to the Bill could simply be overturned by a future Parliament. That is the basis of our parliamentary democracy. Each Parliament has the right to determine what should remain as part of our legislative structure.
So the Bill has no bearing on Parliament's sovereign power to legislate for Wales. This Parliament will still be able to legislate for Wales once the National Assembly for Wales has been created. That assembly will carry out its functions under legislation enacted by this Parliament. This Bill does not confer powers to make primary legislation on the National Assembly for Wales.

Mr. Ancram: But it does.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall move on to the specific circumstances.
The Bill does not allow general primary legislative powers, but it would pass on to the National Assembly for Wales those powers that are vested in the Secretary of State and certain order-making powers, which are precisely described. Therefore, primary legislative powers can be discussed when we debate clause 29, where the powers are specifically circumscribed. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to raise issues relating to the thwarting of the powers of Westminster. The National Assembly for Wales will be able to act in specific areas.
I agree that the question is not simple. Yes, it is complicated, and we have to think about the vast array of secondary powers that would be passed to the Welsh assembly, or the National Assembly for Wales, or the Assembly of Wales—we will all pick our own version for the future. However, there can be no doubt that, apart from clause 29, which mentions some specific powers, the rest are secondary.
The right hon. Member for Devizes cited as the big precedent section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which was amended in 1922, as he pointed out. In further developing his argument, he claimed that clause 27 of the Scotland Bill contains a similar statement—based, he thought, more closely on the 1973 legislation, although I think that he would admit that it really comes out of the 1920 stable. His argument was about the principle of having a statement about the sovereignty of Westminster as the United Kingdom Parliament.
It is unnecessary and otiose for a similar statement to be included in the legislation for the Welsh assembly, because the National Assembly for Wales will not have the same wide-ranging primary legislative powers as the Scottish Parliament. The referendums were conducted on that basis.
If this Parliament should ever decide that the National Assembly for Wales should have such powers, that will be the point when the amendment becomes active and relevant and should be made. Today, for this legislation, it is otiose and unnecessary. We heard those words for


18 years when we were in opposition. I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes will have the good grace to accept that there is no need for us to vote on the amendment.

Mr. Jenkin: Most of what the Minister said was completely irrelevant to the amendment. The Government have a narrow view of parliamentary sovereignty. It is, of course, a legal concept and, legally, any message of Parliament's sovereignty in any Act of Parliament is superfluous; but the secondary purpose of a provision such as the amendment—this is why it has been used in other legislation, where the Minister's argument about its being otiose equally applies—is political.
We do not want the relationship between Westminster and the Cardiff assembly, if that is where it is to be, to be one in which Westminster is constantly interfering and reasserting its supremacy. That is precisely why it is necessary to include a message in the Bill to explain to everyone who reads it that Parliament is and intends to remain sovereign.
Sovereignty exists only as long as it has the means to sustain itself. Charles I was mentioned in an earlier debate. Charles I was legally sovereign—there is no doubt about that—but he did not have the means to sustain that sovereignty, which is why he got his head chopped off. We are not in the business of having this Parliament's head chopped off at some stage in the future.
Parliament's sovereignty is vital, because we do not have a written constitution. We are not like United States Congressmen, who swear allegiance to the constitution of the United States: we swear allegiance to the Queen, who represents the sovereignty of Parliament. That is our only guarantee of our liberty in this country.
For the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) to say that we need no insurance policies because we have such confidence in the happy relationship between Parliament and the Welsh assembly is completely wrong. It is precisely to plan for all eventualities that we need to make the amendment.

Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No. I want to be brief.
The Minister says that there will be no difficulties between Westminster and the Welsh assembly, but that is entirely his own view, because Welsh nationalist supporters of his legislation, who are sitting in the Chamber, deny the sovereignty of Parliament. They deny that the settlement will be stable, and want it to lead to precisely the destruction of the United Kingdom that he professes to be against.
In unwritten constitutions, the tendency is for powers that are not used to disappear through that disuse. We do not want Parliament to have to reassert its sovereignty by regularly interfering with the Welsh assembly. It would be much better to write into the Bill a clear assertion of sovereignty, so that everyone knows the ground rules by which the assembly will use its powers, preferably with no interference from Parliament.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 365.

Division No. 134]
[7.34 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Amess, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Letwin, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Baldry, Tony
Lidington, David


Bercow, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Blunt, Crispin
Loughton, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Luff, Peter


Boswell, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
MacKay, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maples, John


Burns, Simon
Mates, Michael


Butterfill, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



May, Mrs Theresa


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Norman, Archie



Ottaway, Richard


Collins, Tim
Page, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Paice, James


Cran, James
Paterson, Owen


Curry, Rt Hon David
Pickles, Eric


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Randall, John


Day, Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Faber, David
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forsythe, Clifford
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shepherd, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fox, Dr Liam
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Fraser, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Green, Damian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Greenway, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Grieve, Dominic
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Walter, Robert


Hayes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Horam, John
Wilkinson, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wilshire, David


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Woodward, Shaun


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Yeo, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey




Tellers for the Ayes:


Key, Robert
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Sir David Madel.






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross


Alexander, Douglas
Crausby, David


Allan, Richard
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Dafis, Cynog


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Charlotte
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Banks, Tony
Davidson, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Benton, Joe
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Breed, Colin
Etherington, Bill


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fearn, Ronnie


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fisher, Mark


Browne, Desmond
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flint, Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Follett, Barbara


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burnett, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Stephen
Foulkes, George


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Canavan, Dennis
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godman, Norman A


Cawsey, Ian
Godsiff, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chidgey, David
Gorrie, Donald


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hain, Peter


Coaker, Vermon
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coleman, Iain
Hancock, Mike


Colman, Tony
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harris, Dr Evan


Cooper, Yvette
Harvey, Nick


Corbett, Robin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Corston, Ms Jean
Healey, John


Cotter, Brian
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)





Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McNulty, Tony


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
MacShane, Denis


Hepburn, Stephen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heppell, John
McWilliam, John


Hesford, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mallaber, Judy


Hill, Keith
Marek, DrJohn


Hinchliffe, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoey, Kate
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Home Robertson, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hope, Phil
Martlew, Eric


Hopkins, Kelvin
Maxton, John


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Howells, Dr Kim
Meale, Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michael, Alun


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Milbum, Alan


Hurst, Alan
Miller, Andrew


Hutton, John
Mitchell, Austin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moffatt, Laura


Ingram, Adam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moore, Michael


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jenkins, Brian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)



Morley, Elliot


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Hara, Eddie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Olner, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Neill, Martin


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Öpik, Lembit


Keetch, Paul
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Osbome, Ms Sandra


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pearson, Ian


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Plaskitt, James


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pollard, Kerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Pope, Greg


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pound, Stephen


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Powell, Sir Raymond


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Levitt, Tom
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Linton, Martin
Purchase, Ken


Livingstone, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce


Livsey, Richard
Quinn, Lawrie


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rammell, Bill


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rapson, Syd


Lock, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Love, Andrew
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


McAllion, John
Rendel, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


McCafferty, Ms Chris



McDonagh, Siobhain
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McDonnell, John
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Rooker, Jeff


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rooney, Terry


Mclsaac, Shona
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roy, Frank


McLeish, Henry
Ruane, Chris


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Ms Joan






Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Timms, Stephen


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Sanders, Adrian
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Truswell, Paul


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tyler, Paul


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Vaz, Keith


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
White, Brian


Snape, Peter
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel



Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stott, Roger
Wise, Audrey


Stringer, Graham
Wood, Mike


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Swinney, John
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Janet Anderson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

MEMBERSHIP

Mr. Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 1, line 15, after 'of' insert
'members for each Assembly constituency'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 94, in page 1, leave out lines 16 and 17.
No. 22A, in page 1, line 16, leave out from 'constituency' to end of line 17.
No. 23A, in page 1, line 18, leave out from 'constituencies' to end of line 20 and insert
'shall initially be the parliamentary constituencies in Wales, which shall be subject to periodic review by the Boundary Commission for Wales with like powers and in like manner as in the case of parliamentary constituencies.'.
No. 95, in page 1, line 18, leave out from 'constituencies' to 'shall' in line 19.
No. 110, in schedule 1, page 70, line 5, leave out 'the parliamentary constituencies in' and insert
'determined by the Boundary Commission for'.
No. 111, in page 70, leave out lines 7 to 11.
No. 112, in page 70, leave out lines 12 to 14.
No. 113, in page 70, leave out lines 16 to 22.
No. 114, in page 70, line 24, leave out from 'where' to second 'the'.
No. 115, in page 70. line 26, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'constituency'.
No. 116, in page 70, line 27, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'constituency'.
No. 117, in page 70, line 31, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'constituency'.
No. 118, in page 70, line 33, leave out from 'constituency' to 'and' in line 34.
No. 119, in page 70, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 2 on page 71.
No. 120, in page 71, leave out lines 3 to 7.
No. 121, in page 71, line 10, leave out 'electoral region or regions' and insert 'constituency or constituencies'.
No. 122, in page 71, line 13, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
No. 123, in page 71, line 18, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
No. 124, in page 71, line 19, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
No. 125, in page 71, line 44, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
No. 126, in page 71, line 45, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
No. 127, in page 72, line 1, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
No. 128, in page 72, line 3, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
No. 130, in page 72, leave out lines 7 to 43.
No. 191, in page 72, leave out lines 10 to 14.
No. 129, in page 73, line 6, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'constituency'.
No. 131, in page 73, line 8, leave out from 'within' to end of line 9 and insert 'the Assembly constituency'.
No. 49, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out from 'have' to end of line 15 on page 3 and insert—
'a single transferable vote, that is to say a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and
(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or
(ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.'.


No. 11, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'two votes' and insert 'one vote'.
No. 12, in page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 3.
No. 58, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'the simple majority system' and insert
'a preferential voting system whereby the voter indicates his or her preference for the candidates by marking the ballot paper 1, 2, 3, etc., with the votes of the last candidate being transferred on the basis of second preferences until one candidate has 50 per cent. + 1 of the votes cast.'.
No. 13, in page 3, leave out lines 5 to 15.
No. 102, in clause 8, page 5, line 18, leave out from 'only' to end of line 20 and insert
'one vote; and the member shall be returned under the system in section 4 above'.
No. 32A, in clause 10, page 6, leave out lines 28 to 30.
No. 106, in clause 14, page 9, line 1, leave out from 'member' to 'is' in line 3.
No. 107, in page 9, line 3, leave out from 'member' to first 'his' in line 5.
No. 108, in page 9, line 7, leave out from first 'member' to second 'he' in line 8.
No. 109, in page 9, line 13, leave out from 'member' to end of line 15.

Mr. Öpik: I am tempted to shout "House", but not sufficiently tempted actually to do so.
It is interesting to commence this debate having just had a Division because voting systems are what we want to discuss. In simple terms, the Liberal Democrats propose the replacement of the system in the Bill with a single transferable vote system. Our amendments pave the way for STV in multi-Member constituencies by removing the references to the electoral regions.
The system would achieve the main aims of an electoral system: proportionality, voter choice and constituency link. Naturally, the boundary commission would determine the boundaries of the STV constituencies. It is a fairly straightforward process. STV would allow for single-Member constituencies in rural areas with sparse populations. It is important to stress that in some areas STV can still provide single-seat constituencies.
The purpose of our proposal is to ensure the fairest achievable system of proportional representation for Wales. The Labour party's acceptance, about 18 months ago, of the case for proportional representation in the Welsh assembly was a source of great celebration among Liberal Democrats. It was with some delight that we prepared our amendments, safe in the knowledge that the strategic argument for a proportional representation system had been won. Not only the Liberal Democrats called for an STV system to maximise voter choice. The Electoral Reform Society, the Parliament for Wales Campaign, the Movement for Welsh Democracy, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have been united in the belief that STV provides the best system of proportionality that we can have.
I shall briefly explain the system in the Bill—the additional member system with closed party lists—without going through every excruciating detail. Every voter has two votes: one for a constituency Member and one for a party list. The constituency Member is the same as we have now—40 constituencies with 40 Members elected by the first-past-the-post system. An additional 20 Members will be elected from a closed party list to correct the disproportionate effects of first past the post. To make up the 20, four will be elected from each of the five old European constituencies that make up the new assembly's electoral regions. That is huge progress; for the first time, Wales has a serious chance of getting a national elected body proportionate to the votes cast.
As we all know, first past the post has regularly and monotonously created an unrepresentative outcome. That was clearly the case on 1 May, when an overwhelming majority of Labour Members were elected to the House

despite the fact that Labour had only a minority of the vote. To that extent, we praise the Government for their foresightedness and for their willingness to carry through a promise made before their election. We seek to amend the proportional system to make it even more proportional, on the basis that we are now arguing about the details and how to improve our system of election to make it as transparently fair as possible.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman said that he was seeking to make the system even more proportional, but do not studies of the 1 May general election result show that only the additional member system would have given a more proportional result than first past the post? STV would have given a less proportional result than AMS.

Mr. Öpik: There have been various surveys, but they have consistently failed to assess—indeed, they cannot realistically assess—how voting intentions would have changed had a truly proportional system been in use so that people did not have to take a gamble or make some tactical calculation before casting their votes.

Mr. Donald Anderson: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Öpik: We do not know. That is one of the interesting elements of our debate. We can be fairly sure from what happened on 1 May that people voted tactically to help remove the Government. Few would question that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name names."] I do not want to mention individuals, on the ground that it would be a major retrograde step for my political career for me to bring the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats into this—unless he wants to intervene.
People voted in a way that showed that they were thinking of more than the simple casting of a vote for one party. They were thinking about the bigger picture—the effect that their vote would have. On that assumption, we are seeking to look beyond the simple calculations of the percentages of polls that have occurred in the past to how to remove the element of gambling in which voters have to indulge at present. How can we ensure that voters can vote according to their preferences and consciences, safe in the knowledge that the electoral system will do the rest on their behalf?
One of the assumptions of STV systems is that voters should not be expected to be experts on the electoral system and that the structure should serve them rather than make them study tables, graphs, advice in newspapers and what their friends are doing. For that reason, STV has generally been regarded as very successful.

Mr. Robert Syms: If STV is so successful, why do only Southern Ireland and Malta use it? Why should someone's second preference outweigh someone else's first preference? That is how the system works.

Mr. Öpik: One person's second preference does not outweigh another's first choice. It is simply that if the candidate of first choice is eliminated, a person's vote is not wasted but transferred to their second preference. Before the hon. Gentleman rises again, let me stress that no system of election is perfect. We are trying to optimise


the system that we have. He is wrong to say that Southern Ireland and Malta are the only places that enjoy STV systems. The United Kingdom uses STV in Northern Ireland because it was believed that STV would be the fairest system in an area where, more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, fairness has to be seen to have been achieved.

Mr. Ancram: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason for the introduction of STV in Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland does not have pluralist politics? Its politics are very different from those of the rest of the United Kingdom. If STV were introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom, its effect would be the reverse of that which it has had in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Öpik: I find it hard to understand the right hon. Gentleman's second point. He is almost saying that if we have a fairer system, people will have to become more partisan and sectarian. I do not accept that. Having grown up in Northern Ireland, I praise the STV system there. It is understood and accepted by pretty much everyone as a fair system for creating a representative outcome. Must we wait for things to get so bad in communities that people are no longer operating effectively in their political system before we are prepared to introduce a fairer system of government? The Liberal Democrats do not operate like that. We think that if something is working effectively in one part of the United Kingdom, the rest of the UK deserves it too. Let us not wait for troubles in our political systems to optimise their operations. The right hon. Gentleman has a deep knowledge of Northern Irish politics. Will he not ask himself whether he agrees with me and many people in Northern Ireland from both sides of the political divide that, for all the problems in Northern Irish politics, the STV system is one thing that is generally regarded as a success? That can be argued for particular reasons, but the most particular reason of all is that STV is the fairest system of electing a Government that anyone has yet come up with.
I shall listen with great interest to speeches from colleagues from other parties if they wish to express their worries about STV. We shall try to allay some of their fears.
I wish to talk a little more about the additional member system.

8 pm

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, may I point out that a big negative for the STV system is that it creates multi-Member constituencies. I notice that he has not made any remark about that. He represents a rural seat that has its own strong identity, and so do I. Unfortunately, multi-Member constituencies mean that the attachment of people in a given area to their Member is lost.

Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. I am discussing the STV system this evening rather as I would eat a pizza—I am saving the very best bit until last.

Mr. Ancram: The best bit is the crust.

Mr. Öpik: I knew that I would regret saying that. I shall move swiftly on, not be distracted by these

gastronomic accusations and return to the point made by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams).
It is important that we discuss the merits and demerits of multi-seat constituencies, but I want to talk about the additional member system first. I shall describe our concerns about the AMS system. I shall be brief because I am sure that many other hon. Members wish to speak on the matter. The AMS system maintains the firstpast-the-post system for the 40 constituencies. That means that the voter has to develop a certain understanding of the nature of the political process. That is our job, not the voter's job. Our job is to create the simplest structure so that the voter can enjoy the outcome for which he or she or, to be more exact, his or her community, has decided to vote.
The AMS system creates party lists. Party lists can be open or closed, but in essence the voter votes for a political party. In a closed list system, the political parties decide who goes on those lists. As Liberal Democrats, we are worried about the power that that gives political parties to establish who will sit in the assembly. We would like a more open system, and there is more than one open system to choose from. We want a system that gives voters choice and we want an open list so that the parties do not enjoy a stranglehold on the 20 seats.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend think that the Government ought to be persuaded that parties that insist on closed lists may be punished by the electorate, who resent being presented with cloned candidates rather than the genuine range of opinion that is apparent even within new Labour? Does he agree that the Government should perhaps consider that a more pluralist system might benefit them?

Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. By amazing coincidence, I have an example of just such an event. In Bavaria, which has a form of open-list AMS for its state Parliament elections, in a celebrated case in 1962, Dr. Hildegard Hamm-Brucher was sensationally moved from 17th position to first, despite the protestations of the political parties, by the wish of the voters. The voters reacted to party bullying and elected the person they, rather than the party, wanted.
There is resentment among the public when they feel that there is a party stitch-up. Some valuable points were made by Labour Back Benchers earlier about jobs for the boys—jobs for the boys and the girls. The STV system gets rid of all that, but with AMS there is still a danger, especially in the 20 seats, of patronage and that the situation will be exacerbated by the closed list.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr expressed concern about multi-seat constituencies. I want to explain why we think they are an advantage. There is nothing new about them in the United Kingdom. In any large metropolitan authority, members of different parties are likely to represent the same ward. I have experience on Newcastle upon Tyne city council of a three-party ward. For a long time there were two Tories and one Liberal Democrat councillor. Now, I am glad to say, there are three Liberal Democrats. We learnt to work together. The public chose which councillor they wanted to use. There was a surprising degree of co-operation. The party issues came second and the interests of the people came


first. In local government, we already have abundant evidence to suggest that people are effectively represented by multi-seat wards.
Another example is to be found in the Republic of Ireland. I have had many discussions with politicians in Southern Ireland in fulfilling my responsibilities as Liberal Democrat spokesman on Northern Ireland. They often talk about STV. One of the most interesting consequences of the multi-seat STV system in the Republic of Ireland is the regular and consistent interest that all Members of the Irish Parliament must take in the activities and problems of their constituents. More to the point—this is perhaps something that we as Members of Parliament would not enjoy—there is an element of competition within the parties to be the best constituency representatives. That may make us work a little harder in our constituencies, but there is no doubt that the winner is the voter.

Mr. Richard Allan: Is not one of the strongest benefits of the STV system that individuals who hold strong political views are more likely to be represented by a range of political representatives? For example, strong Conservatives in Wales cannot find a sympathetic ear because only one party represents large areas of Wales.

Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I should like to think that there is no such problem in Powys and that the voters would repeatedly fill up all the spaces with Liberal Democrats, but I am sure that even in Powys there is a cross-section of political views. In rural areas, for the sake of simplicity, we may end up with single-seat constituencies, but in places such as Cardiff and Swansea there is no doubt that the first-past-the-post system mitigates against proportional representation of a cross-section of opinion. We do not get two Labour, one Liberal Democrat, one Conservative and a Plaid Cymru Member representing such cities.
I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend's point. In the interests of democracy, leaving aside the stress and anxieties for us as elected representatives, it would be preferable if a 50 per cent. vote for Labour delivered 50 per cent. of the seats to Labour and if 25 per cent. of the votes for the Liberal Democrats gave us one quarter of the representatives.
One point about multi-Member constituencies that is not always made is that women and ethnic minorities tend to achieve more representation by being allowed to choose between candidates of the same party and, more to the point, by the elimination of some of the closed-shop mentality which, whether we like it or not, often pervades the political system. In that sense, the system is effective even in helping to redress some of the traditional inequities thrown up by the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am a little puzzled. If the only precedents are those from Southern Ireland and Malta, which ethnic minorities are likely to be helped there?

Mr. Öpik: To add fuel to the hon. Gentleman's fire, who would imagine that a Northern Irish Estonian, living at the time in Newcastle, would go on to be Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire? One may regard that as surprising. I accept that the minorities in the Republic of

Ireland are not so much ethnic ones, although there may be such examples, but they do not come to mind immediately. In the past, women were discriminated against in the Republic, as has often happened in many countries, and they are now much better represented in Irish politics than they are in the United Kingdom. We would assert that one reason for that difference is the STV system. I look forward to other examples being cited in the debate.
In Northern Ireland, the whole purpose of the STV system is to prevent one political or religious grouping from overwhelming the political system. Not only has it been quite effective in ensuring the election of a cross-section of representatives from different parts of the sectarian divide, but I should like to think that it has gone some way towards breaking it down. Perhaps that example is a better one to offer the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
I should now like to consider the amendments. I shall not dwell on them because right hon. and hon. Members have no doubt already studied them at great length. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), are indicating assent.

Mr. Ron Davies: Since the hon. Gentleman tempts me, I assure him that I have studied them closely. In fact, I studied them with his predecessor, Alex Carlile. We agreed before the election that the best scheme on offer was the additional member scheme. Before the election, the hon. Gentleman's party signed a solemn and binding undertaking with me to campaign for it during that election. His party also put its name to the White Paper which proposed that scheme and campaigned vigorously and successfully in favour of that document during the referendum. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that I have studied his proposals closely, but I judge them to be second best to the scheme that, before the election, his party thought to be much better.

Mr. Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that we signed on the dotted line for the best scheme that we thought that we could get away with at that time. I have nothing but praise for the right hon. Gentleman's accurate memory, although his hearing is not necessarily as impressive. I believe that we have fulfilled our side of the contract. Despite our misgivings, we campaigned positively and faithfully for the Welsh assembly. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats' contribution was crucial on 18 September. I would suggest that, since the referendum, we have returned the generosity shown by the Secretary of State in like kind.

Ms Lawrence: It is interesting to note what the hon. Gentleman has said. We in the Labour party have stressed the importance of sticking to the contract that we made with the British people. Is he saying that his party does not take the same view about keeping its side of that contract?

Mr. Öpik: On the contrary. I would like to think that, for all our differences—we are now discussing one—we have presented ourselves as a constructive Opposition. We support many of the Bill's proposals. In the final


analysis, we will vote for it. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not trying to encourage the Secretary of State to impose some sort of gagging order on the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Livsey: My hon. Friend is talking about the important principle of proportionality in the STV system. Does he agree that one of our concerns is that the additional Member element in the system proposed for Wales is much weaker than that proposed for Scotland? In Scotland there will be seven additional Members per Euro-seat or electoral region compared with four in Wales. The Scottish system is based on a first-past-the-post element and that is why we are proposing a more proportional system.

Mr. Öpik: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation.

Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could remind the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) that in answer to me he said that the AMS is the best system that he could get away with

Mr. Öpik: Because of various numerical differences, the system in Scotland is more proportionate than that proposed for Wales. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that I said that AMS was the best system that we thought that we could get away with at that time. More to the point, it set the slightly old-fashioned Labour party of Wales on the long, painful journey towards accepting the more radical, fresh and far-sighted views of the Liberal Democrats in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have made tremendous progress in the past 12 months. We will carry on coaching them as best we can on all matters of constitutional reform as the years go by.
It is important to emphasise that we are pleased that we are not discussing the case for proportional representation, but the type of proportional representation that we want to adopt. We do not want to wreck any accord on the creation of the Welsh assembly, rather we want to propose arrangements to improve it. As the Government are a listening Government, surely it is good to have the opportunity to respond to our concerns. On the basis of earlier discussions—and whatever the outcome tonight—perhaps we will review the issues in years to come. Perhaps the Government will be persuaded of the benefits of STV once they have considered what happened with AMS.
8.15 pm
Amendment No. 110 provides for the boundary commission to determine the boundaries of the proposed constituencies. Amendments Nos. 111 to 130 remove references to electoral regions to allow for STV. They are technical changes. Amendment No. 49 is the main enabling amendment to introduce STV by amending clause 4. Amendment No. 102 changes clause 8 to allow for STV and amendments Nos. 106 to 109 change clause 14, again to remove references to the electoral regions in order to allow for STV. In effect, the amendments are a complete package designed to replace AMS with STV.
We are not setting out to wreck the accord; we are very pleased to note where we are starting from because it could have been a lot worse if we had a less progressive

man holding the office of Secretary of State for Wales and a Labour party that was unwilling to look at the future but was content simply to rest on laurels past. Now that the bold step has been taken, it is right for the Liberal Democrats to suggest that the Labour party should take the final step towards true proportionality.
The Labour party should support not just a system that is fairer, but a system that is seen to be such by the public and which offers no secret controls to party hacks to appoint individuals from party lists. Above all, the Labour party should favour a system that enables the Welsh voting public to get exactly what they vote for. That is our intent and it may lead to the re-election of Conservatives in Wales.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Given that we are talking about proportion, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that, in the referendum, only 24 per cent. of the electorate of Powys voted yes?

Mr. Öpik: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of three other statistics. First, the result was massively different from that achieved at the previous referendum. I accept that we still have a job to do to convince many people in Wales that the assembly is the right way forward, but we are well on the way to doing so. Secondly, I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman that just 29 per cent. of the voting public propped up the Tory Government for five years, yet the Tories regarded that as a mandate for wrecking large parts of the country.
As for the third and final statistic, the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that those who whinge about figures and statistics after the vote are often punished by the electorate at the next election, as we saw so graphically in Winchester, where Conservative whingers managed not to win back the seat, but to increase our majority from two to 21,556. My advice to him is to accept the decision of the whole of Wales and constructively to work to weld together a more co-operative and constructive process with members of all parties and of none.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will seriously entertain our amendments and accept the merits of STV. Perhaps we have some way to go before we convince the Government, but I hope that the door is open for a constructive debate. We have come a long way already and I should like to think that this is the beginning of a constructive dialogue that will help to revolutionise the way we elect our representatives and restore the faith of the public who, all too often, have been disappointed, not by how they voted, but by what they got when they voted according to their conscience. I thank hon. Members for their time and I shall be interested to hear all the speeches from Labour Members that add colour and insight to our debate tonight.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) asked whether Labour is the listening party. Perhaps that is part of the problem—we listened to Alex Carlile. He came to a concordat, which is now described as the best the Liberal Democrats could get away with. I wonder whether Mr. Carlile said so at the time.
I understand that our good friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches venerate Mr. Lloyd George, of whom it was said, "Count not his broken promises as a crime.


He meant them, oh he meant them at the time." It was clear that, in the spirit of Lloyd-George-ism, the latter-day Liberal party meant its promise to us "at the time", prior to the election, but since that time an amendment has been ably moved by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire who, consistent with Liberal Democrat tradition and like Miss Enid Lakeman, is having a love affair with proportional representation. He believes that all the ills of society will evaporate if only we accept different forms of proportional representation, depending on whether we are dealing with the matter before or after the election.

Mr. Öpik: On the contrary, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no doubt that, were STV to be introduced in Wales, the return of the Tories would mean that many of the ills of society would return to sit in the Welsh assembly. It is not in our political interests that we move the amendment; it is in the interests of democracy.

Mr. Anderson: What self-sacrifice.
The amendments set out a series of potential voting systems. It is fair to say that there is no perfect voting system and the outcomes are never exact, save in a country such as Israel, where the whole country is a single electoral unit. Unless there is a minimum vote requirement—say 5 per cent.—the result can contain enormous distortions and give great power to fringe groups such as that of the late Rabbi Kahane in Israel.

Mr. Syms: Because of the fringe elements and the diversity of its system, Israel has introduced a directly elected Prime Minister on an essentially first-past-the-post system so as to get away from minorities holding power.

Mr. Anderson: That Prime Minister is still dependent on the Knesset, which is itself the result of a one-country proportional system that carries with it all the problems of coalition-building and fringe or minority power that can now be seen affecting the peace process. Leaving Israel speedily, it can be said that all systems are proportional, but some are more proportional than others. All have advantages and disadvantages.
One important and fundamental point has not yet been made. The fact that the Government are introducing a system of proportional representation tells us something about the spirit in which the devolution package has been put forward. It is an important signal that, in this respect, the Labour party is Plaid Cymru—the party of Wales. Under the current system, we have gained all the seats in the European Parliament—five out of five. To put it bluntly, we are overrepresented and, by contrast, the Conservative party is underrepresented. By what can only be deemed to be an act of generosity, the Labour Government are proposing a system from which we as a party shall not benefit—but Wales will benefit.
If the assembly were to use the first-past-the-post system, we would have the same distortions as have been thrown up by the current system in this Parliament. The Government and the Labour party have not been given sufficient credit for their act of generosity—an act not of weakness, but of strength, because we can decide the issue. It was a spirit not of domination but of inclusiveness that persuaded the Labour Government to bring forward a system of proportional representation in

the first place. That fundamental point needs to be stated before we consider the effects of different electoral systems.

Mr. Allan: I should like to stress that Liberal Democrat Members give the Government credit for their decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made it clear that we feel that the Government have gone a long way in a fairer direction and that we are talking about the final outcome. We fully accept and are duly grateful for the fact that the Government took that decision. It is an essential step forward and we hope that it will be a model for the whole United Kingdom.

Mr. Anderson: I welcome that response. I simply said something that must be said. Had we accepted the Conservative amendment, which would have introduced a first-past-the-post system, the result in respect of the assembly would have been as distorted as was the result of the last election. In that election, the Conservative party received about 20 per cent. of the vote in Wales but had no representatives whereas Plaid Cymru had 10 per cent. of the vote and has four representatives. If that is what the Conservative party wants to follow from its amendment, so be it, but it is wrong in principle and unfair.
The Labour Government are coming to the aid of the Conservative party, both in respect of Europe and in respect of proportional representation, and trying to breathe some life into the corpse that is the Conservative party in Scotland and in Wales. It may well be that that corpse will be slightly revived by the electoral system we are debating.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: Yes, to the hon. Gentleman speaking from the dead.

Mr. Robertson: To get 20 per cent. of the vote and yet no seats is wrong only if one looks at the whole area of Wales; but if we look at each constituency—the principle on which the constitution of this country is rightly founded—we see that in each case electors chose to vote for another candidate. Surely that is quite acceptable to everybody?

Mr. Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman supports the amendment put forward by his party in favour of the first-past-the-post system, he must intend the natural consequence of that, which is that on the 1997 outcome the Conservative party would not be represented in the assembly. He may welcome that and think it a happy result of the electoral system, but I think that it is wrong and unfair. The Conservatives should be included, in spite of themselves, in the assembly

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that many Conservative party members in Wales desperately hope that this provision will be in the Bill; they include a number of former Members of Parliament who are looking for a new incarnation.

Mr. Anderson: It is wonderful to think of former Conservative Members in Wales having a Damascene


experience. They have seen the light and, in spite of the unreconstructed policies put forward by the Conservative Front Bench, they now say that they wish to clamber on board and that they were really closet devolutionists all the time. Like Nicodemus, they come to us at night and say that they were really with us.
Various systems were on offer. The present Welsh Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), and I happily proposed a system that was accepted by the Government—our submission was not to Alex Carlile but to the Welsh Labour party. It was based on the following principles: first, the link between a Member and his constituency is deemed to be valuable and should be accepted in the system. I have been here for a fairly long time. My international experience has shown me that many of my colleagues on the continent come from multi-Member constituencies or have no real identity and base in the areas that they represent. There should therefore be a direct link between a Member and the constituency that he or she purports to represent.
8.30 pm
Secondly, there should be, as far as possible, a known electoral division. Hence the proposed system is based on the current Westminster constituencies because they represent identities and communities. It is also based on the Euro-constituencies, which will now be swept away but which have some relevance in terms of community. Ultimately, there will be a greater relationship between the seats in the assembly and the votes cast by the people of Wales. That is part of the inclusiveness that clearly weighed heavily with Alex Carlile when he accepted that view before the election.
As part of the package my hon. Friend and I proposed, we suggested that there should be 60 seats—40 plus 20—and not simply because there happen to be 60 seats in the Swansea guildhall and, by some great foresight, the founding fathers, who helped to construct and design the Swansea guildhall, had put 60 seats in the chamber. Although that is an important consideration, we thought that that figure made sense. We did not want people to say, "There they go again; we are over-governed." That number of seats seemed to be right for Wales as a whole. It is the Goldilocks syndrome of not too many and not too few. However imperfect it is, I believe that our suggestion meets the requirement.
Hence, I agree with Alex Carlile and the Government, but I do not agree with Lloyd George or the Liberal Democrats

Mr. Ancram: It is always a pleasure to follow a speech of that kind and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for his solicitousness about the Conservative party. I assure him that if he thinks that we are a corpse, he will have some sleepless nights, because we shall haunt him. He may find a little later that it is not the Canterville ghost but a live political body that is haunting him. But by that time it may be too late to do much about it. He spoke about Nicodemus coming in the night. That was a little rich coming from a Labour Member in the context of Wales because there is not total unity of spirit among Labour Members. I, too, have had some interesting conversations over the past four months about the proposals before us.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), is being overworked tonight. This is the third debate to which he will have responded. I had been looking forward to the launching in Committee of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who I thought was the devolution Minister, particularly during the referendum campaign. I then remembered that about 20 years ago he wrote a book called "Proportional Misrepresentation", in which he completely destroyed the argument for proportional representation and came out in favour of the first-past-the-post system, so a speech from him from the Government Front Bench might not have helped the Government's cause.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I felt that we were having a peep-show view of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead committee and the attempts of the Liberal Democrats to persuade their Labour colleagues of the benefits of the single transferable vote. The more I hear the arguments for STV, the less I am convinced by them. The hon. Gentleman talks about fair votes, but when my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) suggested that only 24 per cent. in Powys had voted for the assembly, we were effectively told that those who had voted against were wrong, so they could be ignored. That is the antithesis of an argument for fair votes.

Mr. Öpik: While no one is wrong for expressing a view in any vote, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we still have a job of work to do in that respect? However, under STV, a minority vote will not command an overwhelming majority of the power

Mr. Ancram: That does not detract from the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that if one dislikes what the majority votes for, one simply ignores it. That is not the basis of a fair vote. He gave some examples of STV and referred to Ireland. I do not wish to criticise the Irish system, but in my experience it created anything but stable government. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, I found myself negotiating with a Government led by Mr. Albert Reynolds one month and with a Government led by Mr. John Bruton the next. There had been neither a change of political opinion nor a general election, simply a change of coalition partners—a falling out of individuals—and suddenly the whole political landscape in Ireland changed. We should be very much aware of such lessons if we are to create a stable system. I thought that the Government wanted to create a stable institution in Wales, not one that is constantly at the whim of the small parties involved.
Proportional representation leads to government by deal. That is what coalition is about. I was entertained tonight to hear that the deal cobbled up before the election on the additional member system between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, which was in opposition at the time, had not even lasted the short course between the election and now, and that the Liberal Democrats were trying to unpick it. That does not fill me with great confidence about the Liberal Democrats' proposals.

Mr. Dafis: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that all Governments govern by deal? One of the last


Conservative Government's biggest problems was that a deal between the two disparate wings of the party was impossible, so the whole thing fell apart.

Mr. Ancram: I suppose that, in a pluralist system, all political parties are coalitions. At least within a party there is a system for having arguments, whereas under proportional representation deals are done between different parties. I seriously believe that, almost invariably in a coalition system born out of proportional representation, the small parties hold the balance and sway of power. The Liberal Democrats are keen to have such a system because they look across the water to Germany and see that the party that has remained in government, regardless of whether the left or right is in power, is their sister party. That must be attractive to them. However, it is not a democratic prospect when the party that is actually in power is the one that secures the smallest number of votes.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the writings of Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford university, who incidentally is a great pro-devolutionist, about the problems of having fixed-term Parliaments under a coalition? If one member of the coalition wants to swap sides or change allegiance, real problems arise. Unless there is the possibility of dissolution, it is difficult to maintain a credible Government.

Mr. Ancram: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As in Norway now.

Mr. Ancram: We shall closely examine whether the Scotland Bill has provision for dealing with such a situation. It is a serious point, as is the issue of minorities holding the balance of power in coalitions. Proportional representation makes it easier for not only the moderate minority in the middle but for the extreme minority on the outside to get in. In the recent election in Ireland, three of the seats were held on a narrow majority by people with strongly republican views: two were from Sinn Fein and one was an independent who could, ultimately, hold the balance of power. That is the antithesis of stability.
We argued against devolution, but we now believe that it will happen, so it must work. We should be conscious of anything that is likely to create a more unstable system.

Mr. Livsey: The right hon. Gentleman argues that there is instability in Ireland, which operates an STV system, and in Germany, which operates AMS. Where does he actually stand? The Federal Republic of Germany has been extremely stable under AMS, and so has the Republic of Ireland under an STV system.

Mr. Ancram: I have said what I have said about the Republic of Ireland. The one stable factor in the Federal Republic of Germany has been the constant re-election of the equivalent of the Liberal Democrats on between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. of the vote.
The additional member system gives rise to other problems. Perhaps the Minister will remind me whether the system proposed is the d'Hondt or Sainte-Lague system. They are complicated systems that try to ensure

that there is some degree of proportionality. If the system were totally and openly proportional, it might produce a distorted result. The problem with AMS is that, particularly where there is a closed list, it is the antithesis of fair votes. People are asked, in effect, to vote for a party. Members who are elected are chosen not by the electors, but by the party machine, however the list rankings have been decided. That adds to the power of the party machine, which undermines democracy and creates enormous areas of political patronage. Such a system is open to abuse. That is why we do not like it. The AMS, as opposed to the European system of a straightforward list, has two categories of Member. One category is elected directly by the electors in the constituency under a first-past-the-post system, and the other is elected by party according to the weight of vote across a larger area. Members in the first category will undoubtedly claim to represent the constituents in dealing with the problems of housing, health and roads, and Members in the second category will not have that mandate.
In the Welsh assembly and in the Scottish Parliament, the two categories of Member will be paid the same and have the same facilities, but one will have to work a darn sight harder than the other. I believe that that is a recipe for instability.
The Liberal Democrats' proposal for an open list should be considered, because it at least gives a greater mandate to the Member elected than does AMS.
Ironically, the proposed system is likely, in the short term, to help my party. The hon. Member for Swansea, East kindly reassured us that that was the reason for the Government's proposal. I am not sure that I take that entirely at face value. Even so, I believe that the stability and robustness of the system that we adopt for the Welsh assembly is more important than short-term political gain.
For that reason, we have tabled amendments Nos. 22A and 23A, which would replace the additional member system with the straightforward, firstpast-the-post system. If the result of the vote on 1 May were to be replicated, that would not be in the interests of Conservatives in Wales. However, I take the rather more optimistic view that we are on our way back, and by the time of the Welsh assembly elections, the firstpast-the-post system will do us very well, and a large number of Conservatives will be elected to the assembly.
8.45 pm
I want to put on record the reasons why we are strongly against proportional representation. We believe that our electoral system works better than the PR systems in other countries. Italy is a good example, because it has had PR for years and has had countless Governments. It has now begun to move away from PR towards first past the post, because PR created years of unstable government. France switched back to its second ballot system because the national front won more seats under PR from 1986 to 1988. New Zealand, which introduced PR last year, had to wait more than two months for a Government to be formed. A number of people who have studied that system have told me that we should consider closely the lessons to be learnt from New Zealand before we make the same mistakes.

Mr. Allan: Italy is an extraordinary example to use. According to my reading of that country's current


political situation, there has been far more instability since the change in the electoral system than there was before it. There has been a complete breakdown of the parties, a growth of new parties and confusion between Forza Italia and the parties in the north. There is no case for saying that the introduction of first past the post has stabilised the Italian system.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should consider the number of Governments that there have been since the system was changed, as opposed to the average number per year in the years since the war before it was changed. He will find that his argument does not stand up.
There is no doubt that accountability suffers under a PR system.

Dr. Marek: The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that Italy overtook us in economic well-being years ago, so we must not draw too many conclusions from the position there.
If the election were replicated in Wales, a Labour group from south Wales would be in charge. We needed to change the system so as to provide not a Labour assembly, but a Welsh assembly. We have achieved that by moving away from a first-past-the-post system and providing an element of AMS.

Mr. Ancram: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman has declared that he is going to the assembly or staying in the House. If he is going to the assembly, he must be looking forward to many changes of Administration, possibly in the hope that he will feature in a number of them. I take his point about the need to create a Welsh political unit, but there are other ways of doing that. I do not want to show my hand at this stage, but I shall introduce amendments that try to achieve that. The price that is paid for PR is not necessarily the best way of creating homogeneity in Wales.
There is no doubt that under PR the one-to-one link between a Member of Parliament and his constituency is weakened. I believe that the electorate want one person to be responsible for dealing with their grievances. The fact that I represent all my constituents and not just those who support me is a healthy part of our democratic system, because it broadens our outlook.
I shall ask for a vote on our amendment, because I believe that the introduction of PR into our political system—leaving aside Northern Ireland, where the lack of pluralism creates a different situation—is a bad step. It is a bad step not just for Wales and Scotland, but because it will be seen as the forerunner for the rest of the United Kingdom.
There is no doubt that PR produces the second best, because the result is always compromise. Some people may argue that compromise is a good thing, but in my experience compromise has its place. Compromise in politics normally means getting not the strongest and the best but the "least worst". I do not wish that on the Welsh assembly, and I will therefore press my amendment to a vote when the time comes—if I may, Sir Alan.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I do not think that Ministers will be surprised when I tell them that I do not support the

system proposed in the Bill. Although I am old-fashioned and, no doubt, in a very small minority, I support the first-past-the-post system. We have been told that no system is perfect, and I will not argue the case for first past the post versus proportional representation in general, because that is not what the amendment is about; but basically I support first past the post for the Welsh assembly—and, indeed, for the House. The Bill proposes the worst kind of PR system, if it can be strictly described as a PR system.
I was surprised by the. speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik): like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I had thought that his party's favoured system was the system proposed in the Bill. Certainly, as far as I remember, the Liberal Democrats did not criticise the additional member system during the referendum campaign. I did, publicly, and may have incurred the wrath of the central committee by doing so.

Mr. Livsey: Surely it is well known—and surely the right hon. Gentleman knows—that the Liberal Democrats favour the single transferable vote. The issue was whether we were to have a Welsh assembly, and whether it would involve an element of proportionality. We were prepared to accept that as far as it went, but obviously, as a matter of principle, we favour STV.

Mr. Davies: I think that it would be possible to vote for a Welsh assembly in a referendum as a matter of principle, in support of decentralisation and devolution, while adding the caveat that the Liberal Democrats did not support the additional member system; but I heard no caveats. It surprised me that the Liberal Democrats were not prepared to say fairly, clearly and honestly, before the Welsh people, what they believed.

Mr. Öpik: May I jog the right hon. Gentleman's memory? He may recall that we made our specific concern about the system of proportionality very clear. Indeed, I made it clear more than once on television. During the referendum campaign, we said that strategically things were proceeding in the right direction; the big question, we said, was about PR.

Mr. Davies: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and his speech came as a bit of a surprise to me, but I do not want to pursue the matter. It is understandable, I suppose: it is in character, in the context of the Liberal Democrat party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), waxed lyrical about a system which, apparently, he had invented along with the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). It was marvellous, he told us, because it provided a direct link with constituencies. That is not how I read it. In the case of two thirds of Members the link is there, but in the case of the remaining third it is not a case of breaking a link with a constituency, because there is no link to break. Members are chosen by the party centrally, although there may be certain ways of choosing them.
The Electoral Reform Society has issued a splendid briefing paper. Most of the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was taken from it, although he did not acknowledge the source of his speech. He even found


a reference to Bavaria in the briefing, but he did not say that he had found it there. He obviously knew about Bavaria before the briefing was published.
The briefing paper gives the example of a ballot paper, which shows vividly that there is no link with constituencies. There are no names of people on the paper in the additional member scheme; there are just names of parties. Perhaps there is a list tucked away somewhere, but it is certainly not possible to vote for the names on such a list. The Members who are chosen will of course be accountable—a word that is used constantly nowadays. They will not be accountable to constituents, because they will have no constituents; they will be accountable to the party that has favoured them by putting them on a list.
The additional member system is an apparatchik's dream. It is democratic centralism: "democratic" in inverted commas, that is. The central party chooses. Although the salaries of the additional Members will presumably be paid by the taxpayer rather than the parties, they will be nominees of the parties and accountable to those parties. I think that we will pay a price at the polls. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the British like a link between their Members of Parliament and the constituencies. I think that the Welsh people will find a way out, and I think that, if we adopt the same system in Britain as a whole, the British public will find a way of telling us that they do not like the concentration of party power.
The problem nowadays is that political parties tend to be more and more unpopular. People resent a political class that increases its own power, pay, perks and status, but here we are going further down the road when we should be trying to find a way of making people trust us a bit more as political parties, rather than creating a centralised system.
It is true that two thirds of those who are elected will be chosen by constituencies, but the centralising tendency which probably exists in all parties nowadays is certainly very strong in the Labour party. I am told that efforts are now being made to dilute even the constituency element in the choice of the two thirds. I would not dream of using a word like "cloning"; I think that the managerial language is "profile". A kind of DNA profile is drawn up, and those who fit the profile are deemed acceptable. If someone is old Labour, or old-fashioned—as we have heard from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is extremely new-fashioned—

Mr. Allan: New-fangled.

Mr. Davies: I did not want to say "new-fangled". I wanted to be kind to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. As his colleague has used the phrase, however, I can.
Those of us who are old-fashioned, with unradical thoughts and minds that are not prepared to address problems, are not the kind of people who fit the "profile". Only those who fit the profile will be thrown back to their constituents.
Last night, the Labour party I think decided to put constituencies together, so even the link between the so-called constituency Member and the constituency

might not be strong. We are seeing again the centralising tendency in my party and perhaps we see it in other parties too.

Ms Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the purpose of putting two constituencies together is to achieve better representation for women? Can he suggest another way of achieving that?

Mr. Davies: I have no idea. I have not heard any debate on the matter, which is perhaps not surprising. The executive's decision the other night was taken behind closed doors. I have not seen any minutes. This is the first time that I have heard that argument. By all means, let us have the argument, but let us not take the decision before we have it.

Mr. Rogers: Surely my right hon. Friend would accept that the great advantage of being responsible for two constituencies is that the Member can be doubly democratically accountable—he can be accountable to both constituencies. We double democratic accountability.

Mr. Davies: Except that one does not know where the Member happens to be at the time. Putting constituencies together reduces accountability. That is a problem in modern politics in Wales and probably in all the western democracies. Accountability is reduced as the political class creates more power for itself.
9 pm
I agreed with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about one thing: we should have an open list system. If we are going down this road—and I am sure that there is no chance of changing anything—we should have that system. I confess that I am not as knowledgeable as the Liberal party about electoral reform—it has been thinking and talking of little else for the past 50 years—but I have read the excellent electoral reform publication and I know about the lady from Bavaria who managed 17 years ago to win an election, even though she was at the bottom of the list.
I was attracted by the specimen ballot paper—if we have to have this system at all. Apparently, although I would have thought that it would confuse voters, it is possible to have a choice: to vote for the party and forget about the people who have been chosen, or to vote for someone on the party list. The person at the top of the list might not receive any votes. That would not be conducive to or useful for the apparatchiks, but at least it ameliorates, although only to some extent, the iniquitous system of the closed list and the additional Member.
We shall not be going back to the first- past-the-post system entirely; I accept that that battle has been lost. One third of Members will be elected by this crazy system, but if we are going to have it let us explore the possibility of the open list system. I do not think that there are any problems. If the Bavarians can do it, so can we. As a party, we are very attracted by the German system. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) extolling the virtues of Baden-Wurttemberg. I am not sure where that is, except that it is in Germany.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is next to Bavaria.

Mr. Davies: I am sorry to say that Baden-Württemberg has a closed list system, so I cannot use it as an example.


Most of Germany has a closed list system. When I went to East Germany years ago, it had such a system. The people there told me that it was similar to the one in West Germany, except for Bavaria. They were right.
As the excellent pamphlet tells us, the Germans have that system—and it is part of their history and I do not criticise them for it—because of the problems of the Weimar Republic. One can understand why Germany needed a strong party-based system at that time, but the world has moved on and no doubt one day the German constitution will have to move with the rest of the world.
At least I can give my hon. Friends Bavaria. If one of the German Lander is doing something, it must be right and good. We in Wales should follow that example. I say to my hon. Friends: please consider the matter again. We will pay a price for this centralism unless something is done about the closed list system. Let us have at least an open list system. Then at least the additional member system will be slightly better than it is at present.

Mr. Dafis: Amendment No. 191 provides some flexibility in relation to the boundaries of the regions for the additional member lists. The regions are based on the European electoral regions, which will no longer operate at the time of the election for the National Assembly for Wales. It is important that the areas represented by Members elected under the additional member system bear some relationship to community and geographic reality, and are not simply based on numbers, which the Bill emphasises.
The Wales Mid and West European constituency best demonstrates the absurdity of merely emphasising numbers. That constituency covers an area extending almost from Llandudno, in the north, to Pembrokeshire and includes all of Powys and Llanelli. It is impossible to imagine a more disparate region. The region has absolutely no unity or cohesiveness and is extremely difficult to represent. I do not envy the Member of the European Parliament who must try to represent it, as it is difficult to keep in contact with one's constituents.
Members elected under the additional member system should have a type of constituency to which they are linked, and the regions from which they are elected should be more manageable than European constituencies. Although the Government will not accept amendment No. 191, I hope that, to achieve a sensible system, they will seriously consider making constituencies manageable, rather than simply emphasising numbers.
Amendment No. 58 supports Liberal Democrat amendments in favour of the single transferable vote system. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke against proportional representation, although he seemed to say that the additional member system had even greater deficiencies than the STV system. It has been suggested that the STV system weakens the link between the Member and the constituency. The experience in the Republic of Ireland, however—my comments are based on my meetings with Irish TDs and on seeing them work together—belies the idea that the link is weakened. Although their constituencies are considerably larger, they are not unmanageable.
Electors in an STV system can choose their assembly Member, rather than merely voting for a party, as in the additional member system. Such a connection would

provide a stimulus to a Member of the Assembly to be a good constituency Member. Therefore—as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said—an STV system empowers electors rather than political parties, because electors, not a party, decide which Member will be elected.
It has been suggested that an STV system is complex, and that it is difficult for electors to understand the ballot paper, which contains so many names that are arranged in party lists. Again, however, the Irish experience overwhelmingly shows that that is not true. Although the system seems complex, it is well understood in Ireland. Moreover, the Irish clearly appreciate the influence that the system gives them over a party's selection of candidates. The parties themselves must also consider which of those they include on their lists are most likely to be electable. It is, therefore, a way in which electors can influence the party's choice of candidates, which is perfectly reasonable.
The Irish experience demonstrates that STV produces a less confrontational style of politics in which members of different political parties representing the same constituency work well together. That sometimes happens under the current system when those representing adjoining constituencies work together in the interests of the region, but I was particularly impressed by what I saw in Ireland.
STV also encourages coalition Governments. It has been suggested that coalition Governments create constant instability. However, the Irish Government have displayed a significant continuity of policy over several decades, instead of swinging from one set of policies to another. That must have something to do with Ireland's outstanding economic success. A striking continuity of policy has run through successive Administrations comprising different combinations of political parties. There is, therefore, no evidence from the Irish experience that the accusation of instability has any substance.
The strength of the case for STV has persuaded Plaid Cymru to change its policy. We have moved from supporting the additional member system—although it was a little more complex than that—to supporting the STV system.
We know that the amendment will not be accepted tonight, but we have put down a marker to highlight the virtues of the STV system. We hope that at some stage there will be an opportunity to introduce STV in Wales, and perhaps on a broader basis, as it is a preferable system.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I agree with some of the remarks by the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). They stressed the importance of the link between the Member and the constituency, not just because it tends to give people what they want, but because it is representative of the British constitutional and electoral systems.
I shall make one or two brief comments. I make no apology for repeating myself, as one of my concerns about devolution and the constitution of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly is the drift—although it is somewhat driven—towards European politics.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that there is no constitutional bar to Britain joining a single currency. The United Kingdom is being broken up into regions.


Proportional representation is also an alien concept. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke about its dangers.

Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that proportional representation is more or less alien than eating horses and having toilets that are holes in the ground?

Mr. Robertson: I am not sure whether I should welcome that intervention, but I feel that proportional representation and devolution are totally alien to British political life.
The concept of political parties having to register or be part of the constitution is also totally alien, as is the fact that people will be asked to vote for a political party rather than a person, even though they support that political party. The fact that Members will serve those who compile a list rather than the people whom they are supposed to represent is another element of an alien system. The fact that there will be gatherings of groups to keep the whole thing going is also alien to the British way of life.
I am perplexed that so many hon. Members are smiling or laughing at what I am saying. It may be somewhat comical, but I challenge them to point out where I am wrong in saying that the system is alien to the British way of life. It is not what people in this country expect or what they have grown up with. I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who said that the issue will come back to haunt his party. I ask the Government to take note of him and many others from various parties, who, although I do not agree with everything that they have said, have already come up with many objections to the system.

Mr. Evans: I thank the Government for their generosity in devising a system for the assembly that throws a lifeline to the Conservative party—or that is what we are supposed to believe. However, the Secretary of State must forgive me for being suspicious of his lifeline. I know that he is a charitable person, but I did not realise that his charity extended as far as the Conservative party.
A pick-and-mix assortment of systems is offered for the European elections, the assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland. In addition, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead is looking at various systems that may be used for Westminster. The Liberal Democrats advocate the single transferable vote. I fully understand why they support that system. It may have something to do with their belief that they might be the depository of all the second votes from Tories and Labour supporters. In their virtual reality world, they may think that under STV the assembly will be packed full of Liberal Democrats trying to keep out the Tories and—

Mr. Donald Gorrie: rose—

Mr. Evans: I have only three minutes. I hope that hon. Members will be understanding. I can imagine the system that the Liberal Democrats are thinking of.
With a closed list system, the parties have disproportionate power over their candidates. I have grave reservations about centralising that power in political

parties. It is transferring power not from the parties to the people, but from the people to the parties, particularly from the people who work for political parties in the constituencies.
I also have grave reservations about having two Members representing the same area—a constituency Member and a regional Member. The ordinary electors are already confused about the different responsibilities of different tiers of government. With the assembly, we shall have more tiers of government than Elizabeth Taylor has had tiers on her wedding cakes. The demarcation of responsibility between tiers of government is not clear. Even within one tier of government, people will not know whether to write to their constituency assembly Member or their regional assembly Member, who may be from different parties. There will be massive conflict.
We already know that conflict exists between the members of different parties, and one can only imagine the conflicts that would exist between members of the same party. If the Prime Minister does not get on with his Chancellor of the Exchequer, although they are in the same party and even the same Government, we can only imagine what will happen if we have that form of proportional representation.
I disagree strongly with the system suggested by the Liberal Democrats, which would produce 10 extra politicians. One of the strong arguments that won us a lot of votes in the referendum was, "Do you want to spend the money on politicians or on the people?" We got the result there, but the Liberal Democrats have not been listening and have suggested a system with 10 more politicians. That would cost about £1 million with all the salaries and expenses, and the people would prefer to see the money spent on services.

Dr. Marek: I am making a brief intervention in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We want not a closed list but an open list. The people of Wales will want to be able to decide whom to vote for and whom not to vote for. That is important.
However, if we are to have closed lists, I wonder whether the Minister can promise us that all members of the Labour party will be able to vote to decide the order within the closed list. I do not want some shadowy group of people in Labour party headquarters at Millbank to decide the order. That ought to be done in Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) directly, let me say that what he has asked about is one of the things still to be decided in the Labour party. He will have a chance to say something about it at a later stage—and we shall be able to debate the issues of open lists tomorrow.
Until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), and his peroration about aliens, I had not realised that the electoral system that we propose would form a suitable case for investigation in "The X Files".
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) may have thought that he was on to a winner in proposing amendments to clause 4, but I have to disappoint him because we do not support the amendments that would introduce the single transferable vote. We made it clear in the referendum campaign that we would use the additional member system. That is the best way of achieving a new


inclusiveness and an element of proportionality in Wales, and it was endorsed in the referendum vote on 18 September.
We believe that that system best serves the constituencies, with a representation that reflects the whole of Wales. It will not be too complex for voters to understand or officials to administer—unlike STV, under which we would have to have constituencies with three to five members. Some of the constituencies in rural Wales, such as mid-Wales, west Wales and north Wales, would be very large.
There is also great potential for voter confusion. For example, we know that, although the Irish Republic has had STV since 1923, there are 10 times as many spoilt ballot papers in general elections in Ireland as there are in Wales. Moreover, the counting process is exceedingly complex. In most of Ireland, there are constituencies of between 60,000 and 75,000, but the Welsh constituencies would be bigger. Even in Ireland, there are sometimes as many as 11 or 12 counts—15 were recorded in one constituency—and they take two days to complete. That is not the best system.
As for representation for women, as the hon. Gentleman is a member of the British islands parliamentary group, he will know that there are only two women in the group, and that at present the representation of women in Ireland is no better than in the United Kingdom. From his discussions with members of the Dail, he will also know that they would dearly love to get rid of STV, were it not so entrenched. The German example that the hon. Gentleman used lends no credence to what he had to say. Indeed, it is a warning to political parties to ensure that their selection processes are open.
The official Opposition, of course, want to keep the old first-past-the-post system for elections in Wales. It is for the political parties to tackle the criticisms levelled by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in respect of selecting members, especially for the regions, and allocating their roles. They will not be free-wheeling, independent, forget-the-party members. They will be elected by the voters of Wales to represent the political parties that they have chosen to support. I hope that any Conservatives who may be elected in the process will exhibit enough allegiance to the Conservative party to agree on useful ways of proceeding in the National Assembly for Wales—that is to say, if any of them get elected for the constituencies, which we have yet to see.
Criticism of the additional member system implies criticism of every country in the world that uses it. Does the right hon. Member for Devizes really think that the German system, which Britain was chiefly responsible for creating, has served that country badly or has led to more political and democratic problems than we have suffered since the war? We can agree to differ about what we believe to be the most effective system, but there is no empirical evidence to suggest that first past the post is better than any sort of additional member system.
However gradually the Opposition parties arrive at their positions, they will certainly want to ensure at least an element of proportionality. They can do so by supporting our original proposition.

Mr. Öpik: It was remiss of me not to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the Electoral Reform Society, not just to my speech tonight, but to the general debate on STV and proportional representation.
An alien system, in my view, is one that consistently delivers majority government in the UK with a minority of the vote, as happened in 1992 and 1997. I shall tell the House what I mean by stability. I mean the Republic of Ireland, which now enjoys a standard of living exceeding that of the United Kingdom. Another example would be Germany, which managed to absorb 17 million people on the breadline without going bust in the process. Both countries use PR systems.
I shall tell the Committee what is not acceptable: a system that merely harms one party or prefers one party to another. The reason for change is justice. Social justice is democratic justice. We should not measure the stability of a nation by the frequency with which it changes Administrations. We should measure it according to the country's economic, cultural and social stability. Germany and the Republic of Ireland have shown that stability in spades.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) suggested that I might be new-fangled. I assure him that I am old-fangled. I am, for instance, a strong monarchist, as many people know. I still love a T-bone steak, if I can find one. What I do not want to have to tolerate are iniquities from the past and the first-past-the-post system is one of those iniquities.
Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Llanelli seems to agree with many of our tenets for proportional representation. For one thing, we believe in an open system. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—

Mr. Denzil Davies: rose—

Mr. Öpik: I have not the time to give way.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Öpik: Well, I shall briefly.

Mr. Davies: I made it clear at the beginning of my speech that I was not in favour of proportional representation. All I said was that, if we were to have that sort of system, I should prefer an open to a closed list.

Mr. Öpik: I accept that point and shall move on swiftly. Perhaps we can discuss it further over a pint after the debate.
The constituency and Member link is absolutely right. STV is the one PR system that establishes a 100 per cent. link between elected Members and constituents. A list system does not do so.
We also discussed the fact that the system is an alien proposition, but it is already here, in Northern Ireland and in many organisations. If it makes Wales an alien nation,


I would be happy to live in an alien nation. Perhaps we can import some of that alien thinking back to the rest of the United Kingdom and improve democracy here as well.
In conclusion, this is a debate not about old and new, but about fair and unfair. It is a debate not about stable and unstable, but about undemocratic and democratic processes. That is our argument for STV and if we cannot get it, it is our case for an open-list system. We are glad to have got this far and we praise the Government for the steps that they have taken in moving towards proportional representation. We sincerely hope that this is not the destination, but merely a staging post on a greater journey.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 43, Noes 335.

Division No. 135]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Baker, Norman
Keetch, Paul


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Brake, Tom
Livsey, Richard


Breed, Colin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Burnett, John
ÖPik. Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Russell Bob (Colchester)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Sanders, Adrian


Chidgey, David
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Cotter, Brian
Stunell, Andrew



Swinney, John


Dafis, Cynog
Taylor, MatthewTruro


Davey, Edward (Kingston)




Tonge Dr Jenny


Feam, Ronnie
Tyler Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Gorrie, Donald
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Hancock, Mike
Willis, Phil


Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Michael Moore and


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Richard Allan.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Alexander, Douglas
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burgon, Colin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ashton, Joe
Byers, Stephen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Canavan, Dennis


Beard, Nigel
Cann, Jamie


Begg, Miss Anne
Caplin, Ivor


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Casale, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Cawsey, Ian


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chaytor, David


Berry, Roger
Chisholm, Malcolm


Best, Harold
Clapham, Michael


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blackman, Liz



Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blizzard, Bob
Clwyd, Ann


Borrow, David
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann





Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cooper, Yvette
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dalyell, Tarn
Hurst, Alan


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jamieson, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Drew, David



Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Edwards, Huw
Keeble, Ms Sally


Efford, Clive
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ennis, Jeff
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Etherington, Bill
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Khabra, Piara S


Flint, Caroline
Kidney, David


Flynn, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Follett, Barbara
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Forsythe, Clifford
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Laxton, Bob


Foulkes, George
Lepper, David


Fyfe, Maria
Leslie, Christopher


Galbraith, Sam
Levitt, Tom


Galloway, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gardiner, Barry
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livingstone, Ken


Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAllion, John


Godman, Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grant, Bernie
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hain, Peter
McLeish, Henry


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWilliam, John


Healey, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mandelson, Peter


Hepburn, Stephen
Marek, Dr John






Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shipley, Ms Debra


Maxton, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Michael, Alun
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Hara, Eddie
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Timms, Stephen


Pollard, Kerry
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Todd, Mark


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Powell, Sir Raymond
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Quinn, Lawrie
Vis, Dr Rudi


Radice, Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Rapson, Syd
Wareing, Robert N


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
White, Brian


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooker, Jeff
Wills, Michael


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Audrey


Roy, Frank
Wood, Mike


Ruane, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wyatt, Derek


Ryan, Ms Joan



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Sawford, Phil
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 22 A, in page 1, line 16, leave out from 'constituency' to end of line 17.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 136, Noes 378.

Division No. 136]
[9.43pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Leigh, Edward


Amess, David
Letwin, Oliver


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Arbuthnot, James
Lidington, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Baldry, Tony
Loughton, Tim


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Blunt, Crispin
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Body, Sir Richard
MacKay, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Malins, Humfrey


Brady, Graham
Maples, John


Brazier, Julian
Mates, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Burns, Simon
May, Mrs Theresa


Butterfill, John
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)
Nicholls, Patrick



Norman, Archie


Chope, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Colvin, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robathan, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan, Alan
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ruffley, David


Evans, Nigel
St Aubyn, Nick


Faber, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fabricant, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Flight, Howard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Forsythe, Clifford
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fraser, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Streeter, Gary


Garnier, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Gibb, Nick
Syms, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Green, Damian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Greenway, John
Townend, John


Grieve, Dominic
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Walter, Robert


Hayes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


Horam, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Willetts, David


Hunter, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Woodward, Shaun



Yeo, Tim


Key, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Lansley, Andrew
Sir David Madel.






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cotter, Brian


Alexander, Douglas
Cousins, Jim


Allan, Richard
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Crausby, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Dafis, Cynog


Baker, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Banks, Tony
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Barren, Kevin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bayley, Hugh
Davidson, Ian


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brake, Tom
Ennis, Jeff


Breed, Colin
Etherington, Bill


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fearn, Ronnie


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Browne, Desmond
Flint, Caroline


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burnett, John
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Cable, Dr Vincent
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Canavan, Dennis
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godman, Norman A


Cawsey, Ian
Godsiff, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chidgey, David
Gorrie, Donald


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Grogan, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hain, Peter


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coleman, Iain
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Colman, Tony
Hancock, Mike


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hanson, David


Cooper, Yvette
Harris, Dr Evan





Harvey, Nick
McDonnell, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Healey, John
McIsaac, Shona


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McLeish, Henry


Hepburn, Stephen
McNamara, Kevin


Heppell, John
McNulty, Tony


Hesford, Stephen
MacShane, Denis


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hill, Keith
McWilliam, John


Hinchliffe, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mallaber, Judy


Home Robertson, John
Mandelson, Peter


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marek, Dr John


Hope, Phil
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Howells, Dr Kim
Martlew, Eric


Hoyle, Lindsay
Maxton, John


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
Michael, Alun


Humble, Mrs Joan
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hurst, Alan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hutton, John
Milburn, Alan


Iddon, Dr Brian
Miller, Andrew


Illsley, Eric
Mitchell, Austin


Ingram, Adam
Moffatt, Laura


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Moore, Michael


Jamieson, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jenkins, Brian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)



Morley, Elliot


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Hara, Eddie


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Olner, Bill


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
O'Neill, Martin


Keetch, Paul
Öpik, Lembit


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kemp, Fraser
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pearson, Ian


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Plaskitt, James


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pollard, Kerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Pope, Greg


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pound, Stephen


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Powell, Sir Raymond


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lepper, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Leslie, Christopher
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Levitt, Tom
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Purchase, Ken


Linton, Martin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Livingstone, Ken
Quinn, Lawrie


Livsey, Richard
Radice, Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rammell, Bill


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rapson, Syd


Love, Andrew
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McAllion, John
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rendel, David


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)



McDonagh, Siobhain
Roche, Mrs Barbara






Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Roy, Frank
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ruane, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Sanders, Adrian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Savidge, Malcolm
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Truswell, Paul


Sedgemore Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman Barry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Tyler, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vaz, Keith


Skinner, Dennis
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wallace, James


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Chris(Islington S)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



Webb, sieve


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
White, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Squire, Ms Rachel
willis Phil


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wise Audrey


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Stoate, Dr Howard
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stringer, Graham
Wyatt, Derek


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Swinney, John
Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. McFall.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

COCOA AND CHOCOLATE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8164/96, relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption; and endorses the Government's efforts to resist any discrimination against UK products, to secure their free circulation throughout the EC and to maintain the widest possible range of consumer choice.—[Mr. McFall.]

Orders of the Day — Test Match Cricket

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. Bill Rammell: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate. It is timely, given the current review of listed events and the attempt by the England and Wales Cricket Board to get test match cricket and live test match cricket de-listed. My purpose in seeking the debate and the purpose of Members of Parliament of all parties who signed my early-day motion—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members must leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Rammell: My purpose and the purpose of colleagues is to preserve for everyone the right to be able to watch live test match cricket on terrestrial television.
I should declare an interest, in that I am an inveterate sports fanatic. Although many things have changed over the course of my life, two of my abiding passions for the past 30 years have been football and cricket—watching, playing and endlessly talking about them. I am sure that other hon. Members will relate to that.
My personal enthusiasm for both sports originally derived in large measure from watching them on television. Although I am happy to pay tribute to my parents for almost every aspect of my upbringing, they would be the first to admit that they were not and are not sports fans. Had it not been for sport on television, I am by no means certain that I would have developed an interest in football and cricket. It is through television that one develops such enthusiasm.
I remember, as a child and as an adolescent, watching matches on television, going out with a burst of enthusiasm to play with friends in the park and attempting—and failing—to replicate the feats that I had seen. That is the sort of commitment and enthusiasm that can be generated by watching sport on television.
Had cricket and football been available only on satellite television, I am not certain that I would have developed that interest. Millions of people are in a similar position. Therein, in essence, lies my fear for the future of cricket if it is hidden away exclusively on satellite television, as the England and Wales Cricket Board wants. If youngsters do not develop interest, passion, and enthusiasm for cricket through television, tomorrow's players, club members and viewers risk being lost to the game.
If anyone needs convincing about the scale of that risk, they should consider how many fewer people will be able to watch test match cricket if it is available only on satellite television. The evidence available for football shows that only 16 per cent. of households have access to Sky Sports because they or their parents have chosen to purchase the channel.
When the Euro 96 semi-final was held between England and Germany, the BBC had an audience of 24 million, yet a game of similar importance—the World cup qualifier between England and Italy last October—had an audience of only 4 million. That was one sixth of the audience available to watch it on the BBC. Proportionately, that difference would apply to cricket as much as to football.
The vast majority of families cannot, or choose not to, purchase sport on satellite television, so they, and particularly their children, are denied access to sport that is exclusively available on satellite television. As Jack Bannister aptly said recently:
Many families won't get to see top class cricket on TV. It is the nail in the coffin of grass roots growth.
That is absolutely true.
Although I support that view, I am by no means a wholesale critic of sport on satellite television. Sky Sports has brought major gains and benefits to a host of sports. A major cash injection into football has led to the premier league being rightly regarded as the best in the world.

Mr. Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that there have been benefits with the introduction of satellite television, which has enabled us to watch South Africa versus Australia, and that we should not simply go back to the days of the cartel, when the BBC and ITV could deny many sports fans access to the sport that they wanted to watch? Test matches should be available on the BBC, but satellite broadcasters provide added value.

Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I was about to say that Sky Sports has brought added value to the coverage of sports, particularly those never previously available for viewing on terrestrial television.
Sky has also vastly improved the quality of sports coverage. It uses virtual reality technology to analyse moves within a game, to look at offsides in football and to determine whether a referee was sighted in a certain situation. That has been revolutionary, and I pay tribute to it. Sky has therefore been good for sport, and I want that contribution to continue in the sports that I have mentioned. However, Sky in particular, and satellite television in general, need constraints to control them. That is what the listing of major national sporting events is all about.
May I deal with some of the arguments put forward by the England and Wales Cricket Board in favour of de-listing live test cricket? First, it claims that cricket should be de-listed to get the market rate for television coverage, and says that, without such a cash injection, it fears for the game's future. None the less, the price which the BBC pays for the right to show test cricket has risen by more than 645 per cent. since 1990. That could hardly be described as a bad deal. When the present contract with the BBC was announced in 1994, the deal was variously described by the cricketing authorities and the media as "a bonanza for cricket" and
great news for the game".
Those statements hardly square with the current ECB view that, unless the framework that enabled those deals to be struck is done away with, the game will face a financial crisis.
The ECB has also said that live test cricket is not the be-all and end-all, and that highlights could be made available on the BBC even if live cricket went to satellite television. For cricket enthusiasts, watching highlights of test match cricket is not the same as watching it live. Test cricket is about tactics and pressure building: it is an unfolding drama. That can be properly appreciated only by watching live coverage.
The ECB has said that cricket needs a huge cash injection to nourish grass-roots development, yet there is no guarantee that, if test match cricket went to Sky, the money would be used for that purpose. Football has had a cash bonanza, but where has the money gone? Has it gone to grass-roots development? I think not.
A major part of the money that has been generated has gone into inflating players' salaries to astronomic levels. An average premier league player today expects and demands a salary of £1 million a year. I have nothing against players receiving the going rate, but I do not understand why the vast majority of people should be denied the opportunity to watch their sport on television simply to push up players' salaries.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the involvement of young people in the game will not only improve their sporting excellence in the future, but build up their leadership and teamwork skills? It is important to encourage young people to use cricket to develop skills for their future.

Mr. Rammell: Absolutely. Sport is an effective way for young people to develop community and leadership skills, and cricket is a fine example of that.
There are no guarantees that, if cricket were de-listed, the money would go to the grass roots.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows from our exchange of correspondence, I strongly agree with the points that he has made. I argued this case in the previous Parliament. Does he accept that, as the distinguished journalist Mihir Bose showed in a series of good articles in The Daily Telegraph in the months leading up to Christmas, one of the difficulties about the way in which money from satellite television has been used in other parts of the world is that, once the satellite providers have frozen terrestrial providers out of the market, the money has dropped away? The ECB may be naive in believing that the money would always be available if we were to have a monopoly satellite provider.

Mr. Rammell: That point is well made. The hon. Member describes the ECB as naive. There is concern about the way in which the board is handling these issues.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Since 1994, we have had four-day instead of three-day county cricket matches. County cricket has lost a whole day of entertainment and investment. The money that is derived from television goes to test cricket and to the counties. If the Government will not guarantee that money to test and county cricket, why should the authorities not be free to choose how they sell their rights?

Mr. Rammell: We are talking about a national institution, in which not only the cricketing authorities, but the ordinary paying and playing public have a stake. The public also have rights, which is why our regulatory regime should prevail.
The ECB has also said that it is not necessarily campaigning for cricket to be removed from terrestrial television: it just wants the freedom to obtain the best deal

for cricket in the circumstances. It wants an open contest. It may be an open contest, but it would not be a fair one. On each and every occasion, Sky would initially be able to outbid the BBC, which is limited to its licence fee income.
The ECB's implicit argument seems to be: "Trust us. De-list test match cricket and we shall do our best to get the best deal, yet keep terrestrial television in the picture." I believe that any organisation should be judged not only on its words, but on its actions. Already, although it is not subject to listing, the 1999 cricket World cup has been handed to Sky exclusively by the ECB, although it was aware that the BBC was preparing a bid. Those actions do not fill me with confidence, or make me inclined to trust the ECB if cricket is de-listed.
The Government have set out criteria for the listing of major national sporting events. I maintain that test match cricket meets those criteria. First, test match results have been widely reported for generations on main news bulletins, which suggests a national resonance. Not just cricket enthusiasts but people with a far looser connection with the game have been following the fortunes of the national team.
Secondly, it is clearly practical to have coverage on terrestrial television, not only because that is already happening but because that is the position that the BBC wishes to maintain. Thirdly, there is a long history of broadcasting test match cricket on free-to-air services. The relationship between cricket and the broadcasting authorities at the BBC goes back some 60 years.
For me, however, a more persuasive criterion is the degree to which top stars in a particular sport are widely recognised, and are part of what I would describe as the media establishment by dint of their sporting success. I do not think that any hon. Member who is present would deny that people such as David Gower, Graham Gooch, Ian Botham and Mike Atherton meet that criterion.

Kate Hoey: And Alec Stewart.

Mr. Rammell: Indeed—and many others. Those people are widely known: I would guess that seven out of 10 of the population could identify them, and they associate them with cricket. They are certainly part of the establishment that I have described.
The one aspect of the ECB's arguments that I think has an element of plausibility is its fear that—with test match cricket more effectively protected by listing as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1996, and with no effective competition from either ITV or Channel 4—the BBC will not be pressured or feel obliged to agree a reasonable deal. If that is indeed the ECB's concern, I feel that it should be addressed in a number of ways.
First, the Independent Television Commission has powers to intervene if the BBC will not, or does not choose to, agree a fair price. Secondly, there is no indication that the BBC is not prepared to agree a fair deal. Thirdly, if the ECB is really concerned, I think that it should act now. It should approach the BBC while consultation is taking place, while it has some political leverage. It should sit down and negotiate a deal, and, if necessary, seek the imposition of a formula agreement for uprating. I am sure that that would meet with widespread approval.
I consider that the arguments in favour of retaining listing are overwhelming. I believe that there is a conflict between the desires of the ECB and Sky in the marketplace on the one hand, and, on the other, the community's right to watch one of its premier national sporting events. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me that the rights of the community should prevail

Mr. John Grogan: Let me make two brief points. First, between 1995 and 1998, 405 different cricket clubs received nearly £50 million, allocated by the Sports Council from the proceeds of the national lottery. Cricket receives a larger share of lottery capital awards than any other sport, including £5.2 million for the redevelopment of Trent Bridge as a residential centre of excellence. I feel that the receipt of vast amounts of public money brings with it public responsibility. If cricket wants to receive cash from the people's lottery on such a scale, its greatest occasions must remain accessible to all the people who watch terrestrial television.
Secondly, and perhaps most important, if we exclude the next generation from watching cricket on the box, the old cricketing enemy, Australia, will be laughing in our faces. In Australia, people treat sport seriously. In the land of Mr. Murdoch's birth, they not only nurture their sporting elite in academies, but ensure that all the top sporting action is available to everyone on television. To the Aussies, inspiring future generations is as important to sports development as training today's champions.
Down under, the anti-siphoning list system was established in 1992 and ensures that free-to-air channels are given first option on no fewer than 41 sporting events, including every rugby and cricket international involving Australia. Recent results tend to show that Australian sport does not appear to have suffered too much from the constraints placed on the governing bodies in relation to selling their rights to the highest bidder.
I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that all my constituents, rich and poor, can watch future England versus Australia Ashes tests—whether they be at Lord's, the Oval, Old Trafford, Headingley, Edgbaston or Trent Bridge—live on television.

The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on securing a debate on the position of test cricket on the list of events protected under part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996, and on setting out the case for its retention on that list with such clarity and passion. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on his short but telling speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow describes himself as a sports fanatic, but he is more correctly described as a sports lover. The House is fuller tonight for an Adjournment debate than I or, I suspect, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ever seen it in all the years that we have been in the House. Usually, only the hon. Member concerned, the Speaker and the Minister are in

the House. To have the Benches full of hon. Members who love and take an interest in the issue is a testament to the seriousness with which it is taken.

Ms Joan Walley: We have considered the issue of sport on television, but it is equally important that we examine sport on local radio, particularly BBC radio.

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have received many representations about the list, and some are specifically about the listing of test matches. We recognise that the issue generates strong views in this place, as this debate has shown.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow was correct to say that the issues that he raised concern more than just cricket. I agree that cricket and other sporting events have great significance for many people in this country and generate interest among those who do not normally follow the sport concerned. Events such as the Cup final, the Wimbledon tennis championships and the Grand National are national events. They bring us all together around an event of common interest, so they have a significance far beyond the sport.
I do not dispute the right of sports bodies that organise major events to seek to increase the income for their sport, and the sale of broadcasting rights is one of the ways in which they seek that revenue. They have a duty to do so, and they do it with some vigour, but their pursuit of that revenue is not the whole story. The Government's view is that some major events are so much a part of our national life that they are, in a sense, public property.
The widespread interest that such events generate is only partly a result of the efforts of the promoters. In many cases, it is also the result of the long history of the event, of the fact that it brings together major national and international participants, of the involvement of British national teams or, in the case of cricket, of its deep roots in our national community, going to the grass roots of the game in villages, village greens and cricket matches throughout this country.

Mr. Andrew Reed: Does my hon. Friend agree that the national bodies take only a short-term view in securing funding? The problem is that young people will not have sporting heroes and be encouraged to take up those sports. The national bodies are denying those young people, who need national sporting heroes to become involved in sport, access to sports such as rugby, cricket and football, for short-term cash benefits from Sky television and others. That is only a short-term solution, and will lead to long-term problems for those sports.

Mr. Fisher: As I said, I think that the matter is more complicated than that. It is necessary to fund sports properly, so that they not only nurture the grass roots but reach the widest possible audience. The Government and the advisory group that we have appointed will have difficulty in judging that balance.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is a member of the advisory group. As a member of Surrey county cricket club, she will bring


to the group particular knowledge and sympathy for cricket. Nevertheless, she and the other group members will have a difficult job in balancing the objectives.
Let us be clear about it. The Government are committed to the variety of principles underlying the protected list, but those principles must be weighed against other considerations. The future of the sports cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, difficult choices will have to be made.
The Government have stated that the main criterion for inclusion in the list should be national resonance—which is very important, because it goes beyond a sport's immediate significance. However, we must also consider other matters. In considering whether to list an event, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to such factors as whether it is practical to offer extensive live coverage on a general channel. He will also take into account the impact of listing on the sport's income, which is an important factor, as hon. Members who feel strongly about the matter must realise.
The advisory group announced by the Secretary of State is considering those issues, and it is judging the position of a number of major sporting events against those criteria. We have conducted wide consultation, which has broadly dealt with the issues.
The group has been asked to make its recommendations before Easter, which gives it very little time to consider a complicated matter. I am confident, however, that its recommendations will be clear and objective. We have deliberately chosen people with a wide knowledge of sport, and particularly of the key sports that are being considered.
The group will have to consider whether test cricket meets the criteria for continuing inclusion on the list. Test matches feature prominently on the sporting calendar and command wide interest—as demonstrated by the number of hon. Members in the Chamber for this debate. The Government realise that test matches are events that unite the nation, and I am sure that every hon. Member can think of one or more specific test matches. The first match that I remember was when Laker took 19 wickets. I sat there watching, in black and white, praying that Tony Lock would get a couple of runs. All of us can remember such events.
There are other points of view, some of which we have heard in this debate. Some people argue that the matches appeal primarily to cricket fans, and that average audience ratings for BBC transmissions are a little under 2.5 million. That factor, too, must be taken into account.
The advisory group will also consider prospects for the coverage of sports events on general terrestrial channels. All parties believe that the BBC's coverage of test cricket is of an exceptionally high standard. The corporation's charter, however, states that it must offer programming of general interest to everyone. Scheduling to achieve that objective is a difficult matter.
Whatever the merits of those arguments, the sport of cricket is clearly in need of further funds, as people like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow realise. In the past four years, the England and Wales Cricket Board has invested £10 million in development of its development arm, the Cricket Foundation. My hon. Friend will be aware that Lord McLaurin's ambitious plans for the reorganisation of cricket involve an investment of £150 million at county grounds, which have a real need for that level of investment. That money will have to come from somewhere. There is therefore a difficult balance to achieve.
Although the test's intrinsic national resonance will be central to the advisory group's deliberations, the group will even-handedly consider its resonance against the case for participation, coverage and funding. As well as the ECB and the BBC, the views of other people will be considered.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the needs of sport must be considered in an even-handed way as well as the needs and desires of those of us who love sport and want to see it on our national television channels. I am confident that the group's recommendations will balance the good of cricket with that of the television viewer.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's position on the issue, and I suspect that cricket fans all over the United Kingdom, and perhaps all over the world, will be grateful to him for raising such an important matter and putting the case with such passion and persuasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.